[bryony]

I may be tactless, but, hopefully, speaking a few home truths just might spark some shame and a feeling of how the other person feels.

And shame is always so helpful. Its such a positive emotion, after all. (rolling eyes here.)

Yeah, rather like your comment. Clearly you are of the generation that thinks that, whatever you do, you should never feel shame. Charles Manson will be relieved.

If you really think cheating on a partner is ok, then we have nothing to discuss.

[Sullivan]

I may be tactless, but, hopefully, speaking a few home truths just might spark some shame and a feeling of how the other person feels.

And shame is always so helpful. Its such a positive emotion, after all. (rolling eyes here.)

Clearly you are of the generation that thinks that, whatever you do, you should never feel shame.

Where did I say that?

Charles Manson will be relieved.

Oh, now there's a cogent argument for you. (Aside: I guess it's too trite to say "Hitler" now. Godwin's Law will have to be updated.)

If you really think cheating on a partner is ok,

And where did I say that?

(You're not very good at this, you know?)

[bryony]

I feel I'm a bit biased with answering your questions considering I'm personally opposed to the notion of contractual relationships or having offspring.

That is a problem with a rational discussion like this. If you have "no skin in the game" then it's difficult to have any empathy with the players.

With that said, I think the husband (or wife if applicable) has a greater obligation to his children than to his spouse. The reason I say this is children have no say in what family they are born into, and children lack the independence and experience adults have.

True - but there is also an obligation to the spouse if you allowed her to fall in love with you on the basis of a lie. Don't forget that what you call a "contractual relationship" only applies until children appear. Once that happens there is as much a blood relationship as there are between half-siblings or cousins. You don't share genetic material with each other, but you both share genetic material with one or more 3rd parties - your kids. That actually makes you related, and you should remember that.

Excluding extreme or unusual circumstances, adults choose whether to reproduce. Parents should be held responsible to raising their children to the age of 18, or at the very least, ensuring their children are cared for via child support or foster home.

The fact that you can equate raising a kid to child support or foster home betrays the fact that you not only lack empathy with being a parent, but perhaps also to being a member of a loving family unit with a mum and dad around while you were growing up. If I am right, and you are the offspring of a broken home, it explains a great deal of your lack of empathy and lack of desire for parenthood, and I can only say how sorry I am for your lack of nurturing. This is not sarcasm, I really mean it.

I can quite literally say that I would willingly die to save the life of either of my kids or my wife. If there is no one in the world that you can say that about, then I can honestly say that in my opinion, you have never experienced true love.

It's also true to say, in my opinion, for any couple who divorce, at least one of has never truly loved the other.

As far as the husband's obligation to honor his marriage, that's a bit of a loaded question for me. Frankly, the concept of a contractual relationship strikes me as bizarre.

You seem fixated on this idea of "contractual relationship". As we have seen amongst the recent posts in this small group, there is an extraordinary amount of lying going on between partners. Without some kind of safeguard in terms of law, who ensures that a wayward spouse, usually the husband, running off and leaving the other to care for the kids, contributes to their upbringing?

Have you never promised a friend that you would do something for them? That is a contract, though most of them are trivial and not enforceable by law.

It is a huge commitment that the parties take on, dedicating substantial portions of their lives in the belief and hope that they will stay together. If either party is free to ditch the other, then, yes if there are no kids then sure it is less of an issue, particularly if only a few years have gone by. But if "the best part of one's life" has been wasted on a cheat and a liar, and you have lost significant potential earned income, then a contract for amends is a good idea in my opinion.

Does your home have fire insurance? Why? Do you hope it will never be used? Of course you do. But you still have it, right?

Nobody wants to have to enforce a marriage contract in a court of law, except possibly a gold-digging prostitute married to a 90-year old Texan billionaire... but I'm sure there are a large number of young idealists who thought like you did who are regretting their ideology now.

I attached a Calvin & Hobbes comic strip that I think illustrates as much. Nobody has contractual relationships with their friends or biological family members, so why are romantic relationships different in this regard?

Yeah, its a funny strip and quite true for friendships, but I think I've addressed the point.

I see contracts as a tool of business, or in some cases, such as the military, a means to ensure soldiers report for duty when a war is raging. Marriages though aren't about earning profits or fighting wars. Outside of tradition, the only reason I see for keeping marriage around is to enforce/encourage couples to stay together for the sake of an individual of the couple or for the children.

That doesn't mean it's the only reason. Tradition is important. The end of the 20th century onwards has been very much concerned with destroying tradition, with in my opinion, great harm to the majority.

The ease of divorce has produced immeasurable damage to our culture. When it was harder, though not impossible, there was an incentive for couples to work through their problems. Obviously where there is constant verbal or physical abuse a marriage should end; I do feel, though, that there are all sorts of "grass is greener" pressures now for a partner to say "I'm not getting enough out of this" without realising that you only get out what you put in.

The widespread push towards atheism hasn't helped either, with the "you only have one life in eternity" momentum towards instant gratification. (I say this as an atheist with a deep appreciation of the Christian ethos)

I still get the sense that you feel that depriving a child of a parent is pretty ordinary, and I do feel sad about that.

Being forced to stay in a personal relationship with another adult you no longer want to be involved with sounds like a violation of freedom to me. In my opinion, a couple that cohabitates and willingly stays together is far more commendable than a relationship that relies on a contract to persist. If a contract was never necessary for a relationship to prosper, why get married in the first place?

I think I covered this one

If an individual breaks a contract, typically the person must compensate the party accordingly. This makes sense because the other party entered into the contract to make a profit. This is practical I think when contracts deals with currencies such as money or material resources. However, in a marriage the currency I think is love. Unlike money, genuine love and devotion cannot be coerced from someone.

I disagree. Speaking as the brother of a sociopath, I know that it is quite possible, through plausible lies and pretence, to seduce someone into genuine love and devotion. I saw it happen four times before we became estranged. I couldn't take his lies and dishonesty anymore so I wrote him off, and now refer to him as my "ex-brother". He was a real bastard. Sociopaths have a total lack of empathy, and can only relate to other people in terms of their utility towards the sociopath's goals, including sexual gratification. He's been married at least 3 times, and engaged at least to one other person. In almost every case the girl involved was sweet and innocent and kind, and lived to deeply regret ever meeting him.

Also, you are betraying your male side somewhat here, Flame. Humans evolved specific roles as men and women. Whatever the feminists say, there is an innate need in a woman to be protected and provided for by their man. Thousands of years of civilisation didn't change that, and a mere 50-odd years of the contraceptive pill is just too new to remove that instinct - women do still have the babies after all - and although it is very right-on liberal to be a single mother, I bet there isn't one heterosexual single mother who would not have preferred to have a well-behaved father around.

[quote]

On a positive ending note, congratulations on hitting the 1,000 posts mark.

Really? It doesn't feel like it!

B.

[bryony]

I may be tactless, but, hopefully, speaking a few home truths just might spark some shame and a feeling of how the other person feels.

And shame is always so helpful. Its such a positive emotion, after all. (rolling eyes here.)

Clearly you are of the generation that thinks that, whatever you do, you should never feel shame.

Where did I say that?

Charles Manson will be relieved.

Oh, now there's a cogent argument for you. (Aside: I guess it's too trite to say "Hitler" now. Godwin's Law will have to be updated.)

If you really think cheating on a partner is ok,

And where did I say that?

(You're not very good at this, you know?)

I think if you are going to use sarcasm, you should expect it back, or at least recognise it.

Like I said, you and I have nothing to discuss. Come back when you've read a few more posts.

[bryony]

This guy is not homosexual - he proposed to a girl, got married and had 2 kids, so he is bisexual. He has some kind of gender dysphoria and seems to want the best of both worlds including being unfaithful to his wife. He casually throws out that
"I am currently married but will be filling for divorce if decided to go this route."

This is also the outline I took into the post. It possible that this is not what the poster actually means, but is seems that way from reading the post.

Its almost like I'm bored in my marriage, the spark is gone. Rather than try and see if I can fix our problems, as a bisexual I'm going to try and be a bottom with a new partner. ( A straight person would just go for another female ) The GD almost seems like a side issue.

I can understand somebody trying to put their mild GD issues behind them. Trying to ignore the issue until they no longer can. I cannot understand somebody who plays around with other partners outside their marriage.

Thanks for seeing my point, Janet!

B.

[Sullivan]

I think if you are going to use sarcasm, you should expect it back, or at least recognise it.

That wasn't sarcasm on your part. That was a complete failure to make a single on-point reply. Instead it was all strawmen - attacking points I never made.

Like I said, you and I have nothing to discuss. Come back when you've read a few more posts.

Ah, so now we try "dismissal".

What the hell right do you have to try to get someone to think of themselves as a bad person? That's what shame is, and there is no way you know enough about the OP's history to make such a call.

[MichelleM]

(Off-topic for this thread, but I want to write something elsewhere regarding thoughts that I've had about the very different nature of male/female libido w.r.t. climax, and the reason, therefore, that the stereotypical male behaves as he does.)

I, for one, would be very interested in reading that.

[flamesabers]

Bryony,

I think my viewpoint on parental responsibilities is the result of my ability to compartmentalize rather than anything that happened or didn't happen in my childhood. It's like my perspective on free speech. I very much believe in the freedom of speech, but I don't necessarily agree with how some may choose to exercise that freedom. I don't doubt that some parents are exactly like you: willing to die for your children or wife if necessary. However, other parents even though they love their children very much, wouldn't make the decision to be a parent again if they knew what they know now. Worse yet, other groups of parents may never have wanted to have children anyway, but it was an accident or they felt pressured to do so. It's not unheard of for individuals to use children to trap their partner into a marriage or to use the children to manipulate their significant other.

The reason I say what I said is I realize not all parents are like you. Regardless of how parents privately feel towards their children, I think they should bear a responsibility towards caring for them to the age of majority. However, not all parents can (or are willing to) provide an agape form of love towards their children. As I said earlier, love and devotion cannot be coerced from someone, hence why I say if parents can't raise their kids, they should provide child support and place the kids in a foster home.

It's also true to say, in my opinion, for any couple who divorce, at least one of has never truly loved the other.

I think it's a cop-out to say couples who divorce never truly loved each other. It reminds me of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I think it like saying Christians who become atheists were never real Christians in the first place.

Without some kind of safeguard in terms of law, who ensures that a wayward spouse, usually the husband, running off and leaving the other to care for the kids, contributes to their upbringing?

What about paternity fraud? Men do get court-ordered to pay for child support for children he isn't the biological father of. Do you think this is just?

Speaking of wayward spouses, if I'm not mistaken, it's women who initiate 70%+ of divorces. Coincidentally, it's women who almost always get full custody of the children and alimony. Isn't it strange how the ones who officially end the marriage are favoured by the courts?

Have you never promised a friend that you would do something for them? That is a contract, though most of them are trivial and not enforceable by law.

Yes, I do make promises for friends, but I consider my word to be my honor.

But if "the best part of one's life" has been wasted on a cheat and a liar, and you have lost significant potential earned income, then a contract for amends is a good idea in my opinion.

I think the problem with having a contract for amends for a relationship is it reduces the urgency for both parties to do due diligence of their part. Let's say all producers of NBE herbs are required to fully reimburse customers who do not achieve a certain level of development after a specified period of time. Nobody would have much incentive to do their homework on the reliability of a particular NBE herb if your money would always be reimbursed if things don't work out in the end. The same goes with marriage. Women (or men when applicable) have less motive to ensure without a shadow of a doubt that their significant other is Mr. Right when they have the recourse of cleaning out their husband in alimony and child support if things don't work out.

Does your home have fire insurance? Why? Do you hope it will never be used? Of course you do. But you still have it, right?

Yes, I do buy insurance. However, I think your analogy is flawed because houses don't set themselves on fire. I buy insurance to protect myself against natural disaster or arson, not because I think my home is secretly a pyromaniac.

Nobody wants to have to enforce a marriage contract in a court of law, except possibly a gold-digging prostitute married to a 90-year old Texan billionaire... but I'm sure there are a large number of young idealists who thought like you did who are regretting their ideology now.

What do you mean there are a large number of young idealists who thought like me and are regretting their ideology? If I'm not mistaken, more and more males in my age group are opting out of marriage because they don't want to get screwed over in the divorce courts.

Also, you are betraying your male side somewhat here, Flame. Humans evolved specific roles as men and women.

You mean I'm betraying my male side in ways other than NBE? What do you mean? Are you talking about my male duty to get married, have children and raise a family?

[FreyaAdam]

Wow guys...

I mean come onn... We all are not here because we are perfect husbands or straight honest dudes.

We all have flaws, but enough with crude judgement.

Byronne or whatever your name is dude get a life seriously. I could try to shame you as well because no righteous husband will try to grow boobs or be on this site to begin with.

We all are sick in our own ways. If you cannot offer a decent advice then stop shaming as well.

And before you judge, I am one heck of a.father to my kids and I might have cheated on my wife once, but never after and no intentions of doing that ever. I was to stupid when I did that.

And when my.wife can forgive me.then seriously I don't care what you think of me.

I am just seeing different options out there. And sorry I am not going to abandon my kids.never. I will be a good father to them.

I May never do anything.not even nbe, but I need to understand different ways of coping my gd issues which I have from childhood and always thought will go away once.more responsibilities kick in.

No.I am not.doing.this.for.some sexual kick, but need to understand consequences as well...

Anyways, guys appreciate.all the feedback.

[bryony]

Bryony,

... I don't doubt that some parents are exactly like you: willing to die for your children or wife if necessary. However, other parents even though they love their children very much, wouldn't make the decision to be a parent again if they knew what they know now.

Very likely true. It is a shame that such people have no hurdles to procreating, rather like the unfortunates who have to rely in IVF.

Worse yet, other groups of parents may never have wanted to have children anyway, but it was an accident or they felt pressured to do so. It's not unheard of for individuals to use children to trap their partner into a marriage or to use the children to manipulate their significant other.

ditto my previous.

The reason I say what I said is I realize not all parents are like you. Regardless of how parents privately feel towards their children, I think they should bear a responsibility towards caring for them to the age of majority. However, not all parents can (or are willing to) provide an agape form of love towards their children. As I said earlier, love and devotion cannot be coerced from someone, hence why I say if parents can't raise their kids, they should provide child support and place the kids in a foster home.

double ditto my previous.

It's also true to say, in my opinion, for any couple who divorce, at least one of has never truly loved the other.

I think it's a cop-out to say couples who divorce never truly loved each other. It reminds me of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I think it like saying Christians who become atheists were never real Christians in the first place.

I disagree (obviously). Since Love is an abstract concept, unlike whether you are or are not Scots, clearly there can only be a philosophical definition. We can argue the qualities of love in another thread if you like, but I would question the value of a love that was otherwise than how I have defined it for myself. I would suggest that many disappointed partners went into marriage feeling the way that I do, only to suffer the devastation of lack of reciprocation. You may think that is ok, compartmentalised, whatever, but I can't.

As for your example about atheists and "real Christians", you'd need to give me a better definition of a Christian acceptable to the majority of Christians. At least one Christian of my acquaintance would agree that once you have brought Jesus into your heart it would be impossible to become an atheist. I wouldn't know, of course.

Without some kind of safeguard in terms of law, who ensures that a wayward spouse, usually the husband, running off and leaving the other to care for the kids, contributes to their upbringing?

What about paternity fraud? Men do get court-ordered to pay for child support for children he isn't the biological father of. Do you think this is just?

Certainly not. I'd question the value of his lawyer, or the sanity of the judge that imposed it.

Speaking of wayward spouses, if I'm not mistaken, it's women who initiate 70%+ of divorces. Coincidentally, it's women who almost always get full custody of the children and alimony. Isn't it strange how the ones who officially end the marriage are favoured by the courts?

This is way too anecdotal to have a meaningful opinion. It might be justified if the divorce was initiated because of the male having affairs, which is unfortunately all too common.

Have you never promised a friend that you would do something for them? That is a contract, though most of them are trivial and not enforceable by law.

Yes, I do make promises for friends, but I consider my word to be my honor.

The first contracts were done just that way. The motto of one of, if not the oldest insurance company, Lloyds of London is "my word is my bond" and all of their contracts were originally verbal. That's why the phrase "verbal contract" exists.

But if "the best part of one's life" has been wasted on a cheat and a liar, and you have lost significant potential earned income, then a contract for amends is a good idea in my opinion.

I think the problem with having a contract for amends for a relationship is it reduces the urgency for both parties to do due diligence of their part. Let's say all producers of NBE herbs are required to fully reimburse customers who do not achieve a certain level of development after a specified period of time. Nobody would have much incentive to do their homework on the reliability of a particular NBE herb if your money would always be reimbursed if things don't work out in the end. The same goes with marriage. Women (or men when applicable) have less motive to ensure without a shadow of a doubt that their significant other is Mr. Right when they have the recourse of cleaning out their husband in alimony and child support if things don't work out.

Don't disagree - I'd make marriage harder and divorce harder - but it is what it is.

Does your home have fire insurance? Why? Do you hope it will never be used? Of course you do. But you still have it, right?

Yes, I do buy insurance. However, I think your analogy is flawed because houses don't set themselves on fire. I buy insurance to protect myself against natural disaster or arson, not because I think my home is secretly a pyromaniac.

Hah. Now you are copping out. If we stretch the analogy, I'll bet you have insurance against burglary for which there is a perpertrator and a victim as is the case with many, if not most, divorces.

Nobody wants to have to enforce a marriage contract in a court of law, except possibly a gold-digging prostitute married to a 90-year old Texan billionaire... but I'm sure there are a large number of young idealists who thought like you did who are regretting their ideology now.

What do you mean there are a large number of young idealists who thought like me and are regretting their ideology? If I'm not mistaken, more and more males in my age group are opting out of marriage because they don't want to get screwed over in the divorce courts.

I was referring to the idealism of not getting married because it shouldn't be necessary - something you mentioned to which I responded. Perhaps this thread is getting a bit complicated to follow?

Also, you are betraying your male side somewhat here, Flame. Humans evolved specific roles as men and women.

You mean I'm betraying my male side in ways other than NBE? What do you mean? Are you talking about my male duty to get married, have children and raise a family?

You misunderstood me - you say you are androgynous, but in this matter you betray, to me, the fact that your male side appears to dominate your thinking and your feminine empathic side is taking a back seat. You chopped out the example to which it refers.

B.