# What advise to tell my sons about marriage



## BigBadWolf

So this thread I am considering this, from the perspective of a man wanting to instruct his sons on how to approach marriage in this day and age. My sons are 15 and 20.

Some of these subjects are beyond debate, although of course by typing them here I am welcoming feedback.

Some of the subjects are very much up for debate, particularly modern views on prenuptuals in this day and age.


My advice to my sons...

Concerning himself:

To always be himself, to pursue his own interests, and be willing to invite dating prospects to share in his interests as he himself is wanting or desiring.

To pursue his own education and career goals with clarity, to avoid sacrificing his future happiness and success for instant gratification today. 

To decide and have the vision how marriage and relationship and children fit into such desires and goals. Do not be blindsided by love and then caught off guard, always prepare for the prospect and have a plan, even if just the outline of a plan at this young age. 


Concerning dating:

Never to pursue dating in and of itself, but only as a means to get to know a special woman better, and for her to get to know him better. 

Never as a means to merely score for sex. A good man addicted to sex with many women, is not better than a man addicted to drugs alcohol or gambling. Also this is the way for a man to lose respect for all women, to see all women as those he would find to merely be seeking quick gratification themselves. For it is a fact that we as humans will find what we are looking for, and we will see what we want to see, as we are all masters of self-justification for what we want to justify.

Whether he decides he is wanting a traditional marriage, or marriage to a career woman, he must be honest with himself and his future woman prospective bride on what he is desiring, and to find in such a woman also the honesty to express what she is desiring. 

As well I tell my sons to avoid deliberately seeking out a career woman if they are wanting at all to raise children, as relentless are the demands of raising children and how the selfishness men see often in women is in fact the perfect trait for being such an excellent mother. For instead of resentment as often in a man to give up his "toys" when the children come along, it is the strength and delight of a woman to be selfish for her children. This way is what I have experienced to be the best prospect for success.



Concerning his woman:

She must be his good match, not beneath him and needy and clingy, and not so above him beyond contentment with the choice of his lifestyle and social and economic goals and achievements.

She must be intelligent to the point of matching intellectually. Sexual attraction may ebb and flow, but nothing builds contempt as intelligence sharing the same roof with ignorance, and likewise nothing as fulfilling as having a woman to be a life partner to challenge and discuss and grow with intellectually.

She must be willing to speak for herself with dignity and respect. Tantrums, passive aggresive behavior, yelling, or speaking without thinking, or using many words without substance, these are red flags to avoid.

She must not be sexually promiscuous. I am speaking bluntly, but I tell my sons to avoid a young women with already children out of wedlock, or even to discover they are knowing many men sexually, this is also a red flag to avoid. Understand this is not for any religious reasons, but merely social and emotional and scientific and health reasons. I have raised my sons and daughter to be respecting themselves and their bodies, and they should expect to find companionship possessing such respect as well.

Concerning marriage:

This itself is also deserving it's own thread, but open for discussion here.

In this day and age, it is entirely possible for the good man to lose half or more of everything worked for at the whim of his woman wanting a divorce, such as the result of modern "no fault" divorce. 

So much is this, to protect himself, it is my inclination to advice my sons to study prenuptial agreements and laws, and whether he advises himself to pursue such course or not, he needs to not be ignorant of the very real and very cold possiblities of divorce and the devastating financial hit.

But contrast this with my own very nostalgic views, if after many years of marriage, and that if a woman is giving to her man the very best years of her life, which in itself is not just some whimsical belief, but the reality, then absolutely should my sons be committed to protecting and taking care of his woman, and never to merely divorce her or leave her unless provoked beyond reconciliation by some behavior or action on her own part and her bearing the responsibility for, only in this case should divorce be the consideration.

On this subject of marriage and prenuptuals, I am admittidly hesitant and would welcome all good men's opinions and advice on this matter. 


Concerning children:

Always they are to be regarded and taken care of, no matter what the financial hit or mental or emotional or social stress. 

Always be responsible and seeing children are not mere accidents or liabilities, but the very real results of deliberate actions and behaviors and decision made by my son and his woman.

In short, I am advising my sons to own any and all responsibility for their own offspring, and to seek out only women who will respect and appreciate this responsibility as well.



So these things, briefly typed out for discussion and feedback if anyone is interested.

But as well, I am fiercely interested to what the other good men on this board advise or would advice their own young sons concerning these things.

Even to the point of the many hurting men on this forum, who maybe advise to avoid all women at all costs, but still share your wisdom and experiences, as the young men coming up need to know the successful way in this modern day.


----------



## greenpearl

Constructing a building requires careful preparation. Before the foundation is laid, land must be acquired and plans draws up. 

What is true of constructing a building also applies a successful marriage. Those contemplating marriage need to have a realistic view of both the blessing and the costs of being married. 

Constructing a building maybe expensive, but caring for its long-term maintenance is costly as well. It is similar with marriage. Getting married seems challenging enough, however, maintaining a marital relationship year after year must also be considered.


----------



## greenpearl

A vital factor is a wholehearted commitment. The idea of a solemn commitment frightens many. But if you really love the person you intend to marry, commitment will not seem like a burden. Instead, it will be viewed as a source of security. The sense of commitment implied in marriage will make a couple want to stay together through good times and bad and to be supportive of each other come what may.

Living up to such a commitment requires maturity, thus, people are advised not to marry until they are " past the bloom of the youth", the period when sexual feelings run strong and can distort one's judgment. Young people change rapidly as they grow up. Many who marry when very young find that after just a few years their needs and desires, as well as those of their mate, have changed. Statistics reveal the teenagers who marry are much more likely to be unhappy and seek divorce than those who wait a little longer. So do not rush into marriage


----------



## greenpearl

Do you find it easy to list the qualities you want in a mate? Most do.

However, what about your own qualities? What straits do you have that will help you contribute to a successful marriage? What type of husband or wife will you be? 

For example, do you freely admit your mistakes and accept advice, or are you always defensive when corrected? Are you generally cheerful or optimistic, or do you tend to be gloomy, frequently complaining? Remember, marriage will not change your personality. If you are proud, oversensitive, or overly pessimistic when single, you will be the same when married. 

Since it is difficult to see ourselves the way others see us. Why not ask a parent or a trusted friend for frank comments and suggestions. If you learn of changes that could be made, work on these before taking steps to marry. 

Produce qualities such as " LOVE, JOY, PEACE, LONG-SUFFERING, KINDNESS, FAITH, GOODNESS, MILDNESS, SELF-CONTROL." Modesty and soundness of mind will help you to have wisdom. If you are a man, learn to treat women in a kind and respectful way, while learning to make decisions and shoulder responsibilities. A domineering attitude will lead to trouble.


----------



## greenpearl

Imagine two musical instruments, perhaps a piano and a guitar. If they are correctly tuned, either one can produce beautiful solo music. 

Yet, what happens if these instruments are played together? Now they must be in tune with each other? 

It is similar with you and a prospective mate. Each of you may have worked hard to tune your personality traits as individuals. But the questions now is, Are you in tune with each other? In other words, are you compatible? To be attuned to each other, you and your prospective mate should have similar goals. 

What are your goals? For examples, how do you both feel about having children? What things have the first place in your life? 

In a truly successful marriage, the couple are good friends and enjoy each other's company. For this, they need to have interests in common. It is difficult to sustain a close relationship-much less a marriage, when this is not the case. Still, if your prospective partner enjoys a particular activity, such as hiking, and you do not, does that mean that the two of you should not get married? Not necessarily. Perhaps you share other, more important interests. Moreover, you might give happiness to your prospective partner by sharing in wholesome activities because the other person enjoys them. 

Indeed, , to a large degree, compatibility is determined by how adaptable both of you are rather than by how identical you are. Instead of asking, " Do we agree on everything?" some better questions might be:" What happens when we disagree? Can we discuss matters calmly, according to each other respect and dignity? Or do discussing often deteriorate into heated arguments? 

If you want to get married, be wary of anyone who is proud and opinionated, never willing to compromise, or who constantly demands and schemes to have his or her own way.


----------



## greenpearl

Do not forget that you are dealing with an imperfect human being. Everyone has shortcomings, and some of these will have to be overlooked-both yours and those of your prospective partner. 

Further, a perceived weakness can present an opportunity to grow. People who love and respect each other disagree at times. Could it be both of you simply need to restrain your spirit a little more and learn how to settle matters more peacefully? 

Does your prospective mate show a desire to improve? Do you? Could you learn to be less sensitive, less touchy? Learning to resolve problems can establish a pattern of honest communication that is essential if the two if you get married.


----------



## greenpearl

I copied these from a book I read. 

I don't agree with pre-nup. It shows distrust. I don't want to marry a rich man anyway, and I won't encourage my son to become rich. I just want my son to be responsible and marry a kind woman, have a happy life. And being a parent, I will help my son fly, but I know clearly I can't fly for him. So his life is his life, I want him to have a skill, make enough money to support his family, and be happy. Love him, so I should guide him, but let him fly himself!!!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Something I would add to your list is this, whether sons or daughters...one thing paramount in my mind to teach my children is to take close notice, LEARN, talk about , discover the *Love Languages *of anyone they are considering for marraige and IF they are not very similar in order, I would warn them troubles may lie ahead, unless they are very sacrifical in nature. 

When a woman feels LOVED cause the Man cleans her kitchen & does the dishes (Acts of service) and does not understand his way of feeling loved is Physical Touch, when, for him, Acts of Service are simply not high on his list, these little things can cause alot of turmoil & misunderstanding. Or if she needs "Quality time" -what is most important to her, and he is quite content being a work a holic or traveling alot outside the home, she may not feel her love tank is being filled. 

Even our children are born with Love Languages, do we know what they are ? Such an imporant thing, when you marry somenoe who THINKS & FEELS the same in this area, this will provide such solace & peace , the marraige will not feel like work at all, every easy, free flowing, we strive to please each other in the SAME WAY, not having to work against our own natural desires, but lavishing them on to our spouses.


----------



## turnera

I agree! Learn Love Languages!

One book I would definitely give your sons is Hold On To Your N.U.T.S. from Help for Men, Mentor for Men, Men's Groups, Relationship Advice, Life Coach. In fact, send them to his training seminars. He is amazing. This book teaches you to both honor your responsibilities to your wife and family and also honor your obligations to yourself - all through communication.

I would also sign them up for Financial Peace University. Their future spouses will thank you.


----------



## Scannerguard

> She must not be sexually promiscuous. I am speaking bluntly, but I tell my sons to avoid a young women with already children out of wedlock, or even to discover they are knowing many men sexually, this is also a red flag to avoid. Understand this is not for any religious reasons, but merely social and emotional and scientific and health reasons. I have raised my sons and daughter to be respecting themselves and their bodies, and they should expect to find companionship possessing such respect as well.


Okay. . .I won't take issue with your General Advice of finding Mrs. Utopia for your sons. . .I think it's a well thought-out list and a good manifesto for your sons.

But I will explore this one statement - avoiding women who have had kids out of wedlock.

I get it why you are saying that as a guy and father.

I don't know. . .here's the problem with that advice.

Your son(s) all marry "Good Girls". . .well. . .what kind of girl develops sexual feelings, oh, around the age of 12/13 and either:

A. Has perfectly 100% functioning birth control, never making a mistake or having a failure (and yes, there are millions of pill babies, condom babies, rhthym babies, etc., in case you didn't get the memo)
B. Stays celibate for 10-15 years, during prime reproductive yeasr, waiting for Mr. BBW's sons/Mr. Right?

I don't know, BBW. I have had the "good girl." I married a woman like you advised, Dad. And I appreciate the fact my stb-x didn't have a large sexual history behind her. In fact, it was something I very much loved. The problem is the good girl knows how to go without sex whereas the bad girl who made a mistake in birth control (or even had wild years) is a very sexual.

I don't know, Dad. I think I'd take a tramp right now, knowing what I know now, as long as she was faithful to me. I know that's the downside of risk of marrying a tramp - she may cheat.

I think I'd rather have married a woman who was a little bad, a little naughty, you know? Because you know what? A lot of couples fight, I mean really fight, and at the end of day, often, naughty women don't carry the fight into the bedroom. 

You can bet generally, the Good Girls do.

Why? Because, hormonally, they need sex as much as the next bad girl. And hubby, while he was a jerk earlier today, well, I need his body tonight (within reason).

This has a potential to be a good thread. . .because it's where generalizations are allowed. I am not sure I agree with your manifesto that your sons all marry Madonna's. I think you may be inadvertantly sabatoging their sex lives and eventually their marriage.

Let them bring home a woman with a belly-button ring, nose ring and wearing something a little trampy and say, 

"Dad? Isn't she great?"


----------



## Scannerguard

BTW, I like your advice on never using a woman for your own sexual gratification.

I have told my sons that during the birds and bees lectures/talks.

I remember a monk one time heard a confession from a friend that he had sex with an older woman, that he had sinned in Catholic tradition and was expecting a biblical lecture.

The monk only said, "What you did was wrong - to use another human being for your own gratification. It doesn't matter if it was consenting."

And left it at that.

You have a lot of good advice in there.


----------



## Mom6547

BigBadWolf said:


> Never as a means to merely score for sex. A good man addicted to sex with many women, is not better than a man addicted to drugs alcohol or gambling. Also this is the way for a man to lose respect for all women, to see all women as those he would find to merely be seeking quick gratification themselves.


I will answer the whole advice thing later... But this one point I disagree with enthusiastically.

It sounds like you and I come from different social expectations. I was raised Catholic though. And this was precisely the attitude that was prevalent. It lead to a lot of marriage so that one COULD have sex, confusion about sex, uptightness about sex and finally marriages ending because of weird expectations about sex.

I think that not ALL of society views sex as a thing a man wants to get at all cost and a thing that women must hold onto tightly until he declares his undying love. I would suggest my children find those segments of society that DON'T hold puritanical sexual ideals. I would advocate safe, caring, consentual, responsible and respectful sex partners that are NOT until death do you part. This would even be a great learning experience in terms of fully open communication.

Wanting to have sex is a basic biological desire as well as a hell of a lot of fun. We need to allow our kids to learn how to do it PROPERLY. (And I don't really mean technique though that does not hurt either.) I mean with respect and caring for another's feelings. I don't believe that the desire to have sex with someone represents disrespect OR addiction.


----------



## Mom6547

Scannerguard said:


> BTW, I like your advice on never using a woman for your own sexual gratification.


Is it acceptable to explore sexuality as a mutually beneficial bit of education? I wonder at this assumption that girls don't want to explore sexuality too and must be "used."



> The monk only said, "What you did was wrong - to use another human being for your own gratification. It doesn't matter if it was consenting."


Well I disagree with just about EVERYTHING the Catholic Church has to say about sex right up to thinking that anything someone who has chosen a life of celibacy (aka doing each other in the bum in the cloisters. I lie not) has nothing to say to me about sex in marriage! 

But that is me.


----------



## Mom6547

I am not a man. I don't even play one on tv. Here is what I hope to educate my children (no distinction gender-wise).

Learn to rely on yourself. From a practical standpoint, learn how to take care of your car, cook, do laundry, get and keep a good job, be fit and healthy mentally and physically. From an emotional standpoint, have enough confidence to know that being alone is better than being forever with the wrong person. 

If you want marriage to be until death do you part, know what you are getting into. Take your time. You can always get married tomorrow. Live together. Find out if his leaving his dirty socks on the floor is going to send you around the bend. Find out how well you resolve issues with socks on the floor. Get to know the parents. Is his mother overbearing? Is her father an abusive drunk? Discuss parenting expectations. Get to know each other sexually. Are your drives somewhat compatible? Are you a once a monther getting together with someone who wants it three times a day? Are you wild and crazy and he likes to do it in the dark with a sheet between you? How do you work through that.

Learn about healthy relationships. Read about love languages as the others suggested. Watch the relationships of people who are a little older than you. What do they do right? Wrong?

Don't be in a hurry. Forever is a long time.


----------



## Scannerguard

> Well I disagree with just about EVERYTHING the Catholic Church has to say about sex right up to thinking that anything someone who has chosen a life of celibacy (aka doing each other in the bum in the cloisters. I lie not) has nothing to say to me about sex in marriage!


I don't think monks/priest necessarily choose a life of celibacy.

It's actually a rule of being in the Order and a good one at that.

Look at it this way, vthomeschoolmom.

I get married to my stb-x. I am ministering the masses and I am doing my thing and lecturing my congregation on morals, sin, marriage, salvation and my bit.

Only now add into the mix I have a ***** for a wife and my marriage is on the rocks.

And every week you come to church and I'll tell you what you'd see:

A man up there on the pulpit preaching about marriage who doesn't have a good one himself.

Not only that. . .what if you had a wife who complained that I had to get up and go give last rites at 3 a.m. and couldn't that have waited? After all. . .the ol' geezer was on life support. . .couldn't have that waited?

No. . .I agree with the Church on that one.

No spouses for Priests.

No spouses for Priestesses either.

They don't need that kind of trouble.

And I hope you don't apply that rule to all of your advisors - that they have to be immersed in an institution or problem before you'll accept their advice and input. If that is the case, you'll turn down a lot of good advice from cancer docs, who have never had cancer, chiropractors, who have never had back backs, and lawyers, who have never had legal problems.

Just because the monk didn't have sex, didn't mean his advice was any less wise.


----------



## Scannerguard

> Live together.


Not sure I agree with that too.

Stats show a zero correlation (perhaps a slight negative) between couples who live together prior to marriage and divorce.

We lived together prior to marriage.

I don't think it prepared us for marriage.


----------



## Mom6547

Scannerguard said:


> I don't think monks/priest necessarily choose a life of celibacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No spouses for Priests.
> 
> No spouses for Priestesses either.
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church can do whatever it pleases, as far as I am concerned. I want nothing to do with them, they are so ****ed in the head.
> But that is not the point. You misunderstood THE POINT.
> 
> Someone who choses a life of celibacy (the frequent reality of which means that they are doing each other on the down low) has no business giving advice on sexual matters. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the monk didn't have sex, didn't mean his advice was any less wise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means his advice is pure theory. One, in my opinion, which is based on a totally backassward view of sexuality. You DO Know that the Church continues to maintain that the ONLY reason, even within marriage, for sex is procreation? Or the openness to procreation?
Click to expand...


----------



## Scannerguard

Before you openly go demonstrating your biases towards the Catholic Church by hurling insults, you should do some research.

The Church has relaxed their position on married couples having sex.

They are allowed to do it for sole pursuit of pleasure.

How about that?

Now, will you be so kind as to admit you were wrong?

I say this and I am not even a practicing Catholic (but study religion and religious history, it's interesting to me). I disagree with a lot of Church position too.

You misunderstand my point. . .a person doesn't have to engage in an activity to give advice on it.

Even though crooks often make good criminal lawyers and judges, I don't think every judge and lawyer should have to have commited a crime to participate in law and punishment.

If we aspired to that, every politician would be a crook.


----------



## greenpearl

Scanner

Looks like you had a day off today, or you think fast and type fast. 

Do you like to get into fight with women? Looks like you really enjoy it!

I don't. 

I enjoy fighting with men!!! Love it. 

And I enjoy fighting with my husband, IN BED! love it. 

For something, I don't enjoy fighting, I run away!

Now, I am going to run away......................

RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN......................................


----------



## greenpearl

How come I find I visit the MEN's CLUB the most.

Oooohhmmm, I like to kick men's axxxx. 

YEAH, seeing you men's axxxx being kicked by women, YEAH, a lot of fun........................

:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## BigBadWolf

greenpearl said:


> I copied these from a book I read.
> 
> I don't agree with pre-nup. It shows distrust. I don't want to marry a rich man anyway, and I won't encourage my son to become rich. I just want my son to be responsible and marry a kind woman, have a happy life. And being a parent, I will help my son fly, but I know clearly I can't fly for him. So his life is his life, I want him to have a skill, make enough money to support his family, and be happy. Love him, so I should guide him, but let him fly himself!!!


Thank you for your opinion.

I want to hear much about attitudes and experiences with prenups.

This is because in my own thinking, of course I agree with the sentiment of trust.

But also, I believe a man's word is his word, and if he is to speak marriage vows, this should be understood as a reality.

But in my own experiences, and yes, even this forum has in so many ways opened my eyes, that marriage is not in this modern age assumed to be a vow, that of course either the man or woman can stray with an affair, that is not disputed.

What is disputed is this, if a man and woman is divorced, and this can be in this day and age for any reason at any time, and often not just for infidelity.

One of my peeves, and I will temper this in giving advice to others, but here in my own thread I will speak bluntly, that one of my peeves is the notion that a woman is okay to leave a man merely if is she is bored, and and even with many children, on a whim is free to leave to seek greener pastures or whatever.

Now I know what the argument is, that a man can do the same thing. And on this I will not argue, but this is my experience and my opinion, that during a divorce, the man is easily stripped of material possessions and access to his children almost without blinking, and the woman is perfectly free to do this as many times without consequence.

So I can name no less than three women in my small circle of close aquaintences, who have very much done this thing, to marry a man for a while, and then either get bored or have an affair, and take many times what she entered the relationship with away from this first man, and the only reaction from all three of these women is some sense of amusement combined with an expression of humorous entitlement, and no remorse that I can detect whatsoever.

So this is anecdotal, I admit.

But then I come to this forum, and needless to say, reading so much negativity and scenarios similar but so much even moreso that are practically beyond belief in deviousness and ruin between a man and a woman!

This makes me practically break out in a cold sweat to imagine my own children to involve themselves in something like this, although I know that is often how life works out.

So this is why I am rethinking my attitude to prenuptual agreements.

And also why I am posting this thread.

I want to work on balance between my nostalgic romantic notions and my skeptical cynicism, to find the proper way to advise my sons of the reality of such relationships, leading to marriage.

There is much to try to distil to a simple set of thoughts, so again I appreciate everyone who takes the time to share.


----------



## BigBadWolf

SimplyAmorous said:


> Something I would add to your list is this, whether sons or daughters...one thing paramount in my mind to teach my children is to take close notice, LEARN, talk about , discover the *Love Languages *of anyone they are considering for marraige and IF they are not very similar in order, I would warn them troubles may lie ahead, unless they are very sacrifical in nature.
> 
> When a woman feels LOVED cause the Man cleans her kitchen & does the dishes (Acts of service) and does not understand his way of feeling loved is Physical Touch, when, for him, Acts of Service are simply not high on his list, these little things can cause alot of turmoil & misunderstanding. Or if she needs "Quality time" -what is most important to her, and he is quite content being a work a holic or traveling alot outside the home, she may not feel her love tank is being filled.
> 
> Even our children are born with Love Languages, do we know what they are ? Such an imporant thing, when you marry somenoe who THINKS & FEELS the same in this area, this will provide such solace & peace , the marraige will not feel like work at all, every easy, free flowing, we strive to please each other in the SAME WAY, not having to work against our own natural desires, but lavishing them on to our spouses.


Thank you for these thoughts.

Years ago, my wife got the love languages for raising children.

Now I am wondering how much she is using this psychology instead on me?


----------



## BigBadWolf

turnera said:


> I agree! Learn Love Languages!
> 
> One book I would definitely give your sons is Hold On To Your N.U.T.S. from Help for Men, Mentor for Men, Men's Groups, Relationship Advice, Life Coach. In fact, send them to his training seminars. He is amazing. This book teaches you to both honor your responsibilities to your wife and family and also honor your obligations to yourself - all through communication.
> 
> I would also sign them up for Financial Peace University. Their future spouses will thank you.


Tunera,

Thank you for this recommendation.

I see this book come up often in these threads, I must read this book for myself as well.


----------



## greenpearl

BigBadWolf said:


> Thank you for your opinion.
> 
> I want to hear much about attitudes and experiences with prenups.
> 
> This is because in my own thinking, of course I agree with the sentiment of trust.
> 
> But also, I believe a man's word is his word, and if he is to speak marriage vows, this should be understood as a reality.
> 
> But in my own experiences, and yes, even this forum has in so many ways opened my eyes, that marriage is not in this modern age assumed to be a vow, that of course either the man or woman can stray with an affair, that is not disputed.
> 
> What is disputed is this, if a man and woman is divorced, and this can be in this day and age for any reason at any time, and often not just for infidelity.
> 
> One of my peeves, and I will temper this in giving advice to others, but here in my own thread I will speak bluntly, that one of my peeves is the notion that a woman is okay to leave a man merely if is she is bored, and and even with many children, on a whim is free to leave to seek greener pastures or whatever.
> 
> Now I know what the argument is, that a man can do the same thing. And on this I will not argue, but this is my experience and my opinion, that during a divorce, the man is easily stripped of material possessions and access to his children almost without blinking, and the woman is perfectly free to do this as many times without consequence.
> 
> So I can name no less than three women in my small circle of close aquaintences, who have very much done this thing, to marry a man for a while, and then either get bored or have an affair, and take many times what she entered the relationship with away from this first man, and the only reaction from all three of these women is some sense of amusement combined with an expression of humorous entitlement, and no remorse that I can detect whatsoever.
> 
> So this is anecdotal, I admit.
> 
> But then I come to this forum, and needless to say, reading so much negativity and scenarios similar but so much even moreso that are practically beyond belief in deviousness and ruin between a man and a woman!
> 
> This makes me practically break out in a cold sweat to imagine my own children to involve themselves in something like this, although I know that is often how life works out.
> 
> So this is why I am rethinking my attitude to prenuptual agreements.
> 
> And also why I am posting this thread.
> 
> I want to work on balance between my nostalgic romantic notions and my skeptical cynicism, to find the proper way to advise my sons of the reality of such relationships, leading to marriage.
> 
> There is much to try to distil to a simple set of thoughts, so again I appreciate everyone who takes the time to share.


I know that some women are gold diggers, but only some. If a man met a woman like that, his life is ruined, with a pre-up or without. With a pre-up, at least you are able to protect your wealth, you don't go broke. (just a few days ago, Jaykay was happy since he had pre-up, I am not against that.)Without a pre-up, you end up miserably, no money, no woman. But, living your life with a woman who is vain and greedy, you are going to waste quite some good years on her. 

If you do want to sigh a pre-up, you have to do it tactfully, because it shows the distrust attitude, it is preparing for a divorce, it is like you are not confident with the person, you are telling him or her that we might not be together forever, it is not a good feeling to start at the beginning of the marriage. We are not rich people, so we don't have this problem. But when my ex asked me if I wanted my own account( he was going to give me personal money to save), I said no, I gained his trust. He let me be in charge of his money, everything was in his name. When we divorced, since everything was in his name, he got everything. Do I regret? NO! I chose to leave, I chose to end, I left, I caused him pain, he has my son, leaving all money to him is like leaving all the money to my son. I am happy that they are having a financially secure life. My husband requested to put our money together, he said no separate bank account. I know that a lot of couples have separate bank accounts, my money, your money, it also shows distrust. Since trust is so important to have in a successful marriage, being distrustful is not a good sign. Trust is not only about infidelity. We put our money together, I manage money well, he lost some in 2008, but who doesn't make mistakes in his life, I didn't blame him much. He still wants to invest in the market one day, which is different from me, I am just a saver. I get bothered thinking of him losing money in the market. But if he still wants to do it, we have agreed not to be aggressive. Invest something we are able to lose, if we lose, we lose, if we gain, we gain. I don't want money to hinder in our loving relationship. 

But how many women are there like me??? I am not bragging. I think I am a very understanding and supportive wife. I am not vain, I don't waste our money. How many women can win their men's trust by thinking for the men all the time? And how many men there can prove themselves to be faithful forever and committed? 

BBW, I am a pessimist about marriage too. How many happy marriages are there on the forum? Bob said that TAM is a big hospital for unhappy marriages, but in real life, how many happy marriages are there? I don't see many in my real life. 

But since we are human, we are men and women. A man needs a woman to be complete, a woman needs a man to be complete, we have to gamble. 

So when we choose a spouse, we have to be careful(I made a careless mistake). But if we fail, we fail, it is just life, we make mistakes. Wish our life is smooth, but always be prepared for rough times. That's my attitude now. 

I respect you as a man and as a helper for the forum!!!


----------



## BigBadWolf

Scannerguard said:


> Okay. . .I won't take issue with your General Advice of finding Mrs. Utopia for your sons. . .I think it's a well thought-out list and a good manifesto for your sons.


It is merely for me at this point of course, as a tool to develop my own structure and philosophy for advice. 

I am not going to make this list and literally hand it to my son.

This list for now is for my benefit, and to merely think and discuss out loud about these things.

For my sons, only they have their own eyes, and only they live in their own time so they will of course, make their own decisions.

But when the time comes for advice, or to share my opinion, I want such advice and opinion to come from a solid foundation.




> But I will explore this one statement - avoiding women who have had kids out of wedlock.
> 
> I get it why you are saying that as a guy and father.


Exactly. I was hoping to get much feedback on this!



> I don't know. . .here's the problem with that advice.
> 
> Your son(s) all marry "Good Girls". . .well. . .what kind of girl develops sexual feelings, oh, around the age of 12/13 and either:
> 
> A. Has perfectly 100% functioning birth control, never making a mistake or having a failure (and yes, there are millions of pill babies, condom babies, rhthym babies, etc., in case you didn't get the memo)
> B. Stays celibate for 10-15 years, during prime reproductive yeasr, waiting for Mr. BBW's sons/Mr. Right?


Being my son's are young, this is where I am coming from.

To avoid a girl that simply makes an honest mistake, this is not so much my concern, but understand I am most skeptical of this type of scenario. 

I have this opinion that I do not regard children as mistakes, but the natural and predictable consequences of deliberate sexual actions. 

But mainly for my son's to avoid a girl that gets' pregnant from another boy because:

1. She isn't concerned at all with herself or her future to practice birth control.

2. She is looking to have retained the devotion of some other boy by deliberately or negligently getting pregnant.

3. She does not regard having sexual relations as something of responsiblity, but merely from a sense of entitlement of having fun or worse, to garner attention to herself or wield control over males, with no thought to the longer term effects of such behavior. This is my greatest opposition to so much of feminism, as I see this is most destructive to the very women who buy into this type of thinking. 

This last point above all is most untolerable to me, and would strongly be advising my son to reconsider relations a female with this tendancy. 

Again, this is just my opinion, and I am interested to hear cricism and opposition of all sorts to this.

If these criticism and opposition is sound and reasonable, then all the more I am open to hear it!  



> I don't know, BBW. I have had the "good girl." I married a woman like you advised, Dad. And I appreciate the fact my stb-x didn't have a large sexual history behind her. In fact, it was something I very much loved. The problem is the good girl knows how to go without sex whereas the bad girl who made a mistake in birth control (or even had wild years) is a very sexual.


If I understand what you are saying, is that a good girl is going to tolerate sexual drought and out wait the man moreso than the bad girl?

If so, then of course to me this is the non issue, for again in my philosophy is to instruct my sons in a relationship, never to leave sexual control to the woman, but this is only to the leadership of the man to be dominant in both the sexual relationship and emotion. 

Any woman they are wanting to be with, is free to take or leave the relationship, but on this the man should be aware that he is only compromising this at his peril, to allow a woman to control him with sex.

The cost of this, for nothing in life is free, is for the man to be responsible for the emotional connection. 

I know this is controversial, I make no apology on that, but understand to me there is simply no other way, as I have known too much about women and the behavior and tendancies of women to be negotiable on this subject.

A woman that is on fire sexually to the man who is displaying dominance, even the most church going good girl will make the seediest prostitutes and porn stars blush when these things are in place between this church going girl and her dominant man. 

On this, good luck trying to change my mind, but again I am open to hearing opinions just the same. 



> I don't know, Dad. I think I'd take a tramp right now, knowing what I know now, as long as she was faithful to me. I know that's the downside of risk of marrying a tramp - she may cheat.


Any woman can cheat, of this I do not doubt.

A woman, relative to a man, will see and feel and experience her world very much in the here and now, and if her feelings of insecurity and sexual and emotional neglect are not in place, then nothing, not remembering the past, or hoping for the future, will give her peace, especially if the temptation and attention of some other man lights her fire.

Where a man is certainly prone to these temptations, it is either of low character or sexual neglect that will open the door to infidelity.

A woman, regardless of character or sexual neglect, but of emotional neglect, even the most high character women will not forgive emotoinal neglect, and will seek attention elsewhere when the opportunity arises. 

As well, the presence of STDs, herpes in particular, rampant among college age women who are promiscuous.

The health risks alone are frightening.

And this is not withstanding that a woman that is easily to become attached to this man, and then attached to that man, over time, as human nature is what it is, to see men as disposable, and a means to some end. This is not emotionally healthy, and for my young sons, this is why I advise to watch out for this and avoid it.

On my opinion of these things, again there will be controversy, so again it is welcome for others to share. 




> I think I'd rather have married a woman who was a little bad, a little naughty, you know? Because you know what? A lot of couples fight, I mean really fight, and at the end of day, often, naughty women don't carry the fight into the bedroom.
> 
> You can bet generally, the Good Girls do.
> 
> Why? Because, hormonally, they need sex as much as the next bad girl. And hubby, while he was a jerk earlier today, well, I need his body tonight (within reason).


I agree with this 100 percent.

My philosophy, what I will instruct my sons, is in the bedroom and behind closed doors, all women are bad girls.

Any good man that does not learn this, needs to. 




> This has a potential to be a good thread. . .because it's where generalizations are allowed.


Generalize away.

I find it amusing when discussing men and women, especially discussing sexual behavior, that somehow sexist generalizing is looked at as something bad.  



> I am not sure I agree with your manifesto that your sons all marry Madonna's. I think you may be inadvertantly sabatoging their sex lives and eventually their marriage.


It is good to hear your opinions! 

Do not hold back, for I am much like my sons, and they are much like me, to take information and decide for themselves what is appropriate. 

They are not thin skinned, nor am I. 



> Let them bring home a woman with a belly-button ring, nose ring and wearing something a little trampy and say,
> 
> "Dad? Isn't she great?"


Ha ha, I would have no problem with that.

Especially for piercing and tattoos, between my wife and myself it would surprise most of these young people how much we could teach and show most of them. 

Thank you again for your comments.


----------



## BigBadWolf

Scannerguard said:


> BTW, I like your advice on never using a woman for your own sexual gratification.
> 
> I have told my sons that during the birds and bees lectures/talks.
> 
> I remember a monk one time heard a confession from a friend that he had sex with an older woman, that he had sinned in Catholic tradition and was expecting a biblical lecture.
> 
> The monk only said, "What you did was wrong - to use another human being for your own gratification. It doesn't matter if it was consenting."
> 
> And left it at that.
> 
> You have a lot of good advice in there.


Thank you for sharing this story.


----------



## BigBadWolf

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I will answer the whole advice thing later... But this one point I disagree with enthusiastically.
> 
> It sounds like you and I come from different social expectations. I was raised Catholic though. And this was precisely the attitude that was prevalent. It lead to a lot of marriage so that one COULD have sex, confusion about sex, uptightness about sex and finally marriages ending because of weird expectations about sex.


This is an excellent point.

I am in so many ways as a man seeking balance, that often I am caught between two worlds. 

It is sometimes very difficult to say one side or the other is predominate.

And this is one of those areas.

To see your opinion, to be honest, these things I agree.

I am not advocating abstinence. 

Although if it were to be abstinence as a default until the woman comes along that would indeed be a good match in my son's expectations, and then should they choose to be responsible in exploring each other sexually, that is actually ideal.

But I am seeking a balance between that and the promiscuous lifestyle that I see flaunted among college age young people, and that I see played out similarly though not as blatant in my workplace and social circles.




> I think that not ALL of society views sex as a thing a man wants to get at all cost and a thing that women must hold onto tightly until he declares his undying love. I would suggest my children find those segments of society that DON'T hold puritanical sexual ideals.


Agreed!



> I would advocate safe, caring, consentual, responsible and respectful sex partners that are NOT until death do you part. This would even be a great learning experience in terms of fully open communication.


I am going to think about this, particularly the part about not being until death.

What you are describing is not traditional marriage, but something different. Perhaps it will be what marriage evolves into eventually. 

Intriguing.



> Wanting to have sex is a basic biological desire as well as a hell of a lot of fun. We need to allow our kids to learn how to do it PROPERLY. (And I don't really mean technique though that does not hurt either.) I mean with respect and caring for another's feelings. I don't believe that the desire to have sex with someone represents disrespect OR addiction.


What you are describing, to temper sexual experience with deliberate respect, to do this properly, I agree is not an addiction.

But sexual attraction is a very powerful force, and can easily consume even the most noble and innocent intentions.

To be able to see a woman as a woman, and not either be worshipping her from sexual addiction, or resenting her from lack of respect, this is what I would like to pave the way for my sons.

Never to see a woman as either an angel or a demon, but maybe an exciting and dynamic combination of both!


----------



## BigBadWolf

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I am not a man. I don't even play one on tv. Here is what I hope to educate my children (no distinction gender-wise).
> 
> Learn to rely on yourself. From a practical standpoint, learn how to take care of your car, cook, do laundry, get and keep a good job, be fit and healthy mentally and physically. From an emotional standpoint, have enough confidence to know that being alone is better than being forever with the wrong person.
> 
> If you want marriage to be until death do you part, know what you are getting into. Take your time. You can always get married tomorrow. Live together. Find out if his leaving his dirty socks on the floor is going to send you around the bend. Find out how well you resolve issues with socks on the floor. Get to know the parents. Is his mother overbearing? Is her father an abusive drunk? Discuss parenting expectations. Get to know each other sexually. Are your drives somewhat compatible? Are you a once a monther getting together with someone who wants it three times a day? Are you wild and crazy and he likes to do it in the dark with a sheet between you? How do you work through that.
> 
> Learn about healthy relationships. Read about love languages as the others suggested. Watch the relationships of people who are a little older than you. What do they do right? Wrong?
> 
> Don't be in a hurry. Forever is a long time.


Thank you for sharing this.


----------



## BigBadWolf

greenpearl said:


> I know that some women are gold diggers, but only some. If a man met a woman like that, his life is ruined, with a pre-up or without. With a pre-up, at least you are able to protect your wealth, you don't go broke. (just a few days ago, Jaykay was happy since he had pre-up, I am not against that.)Without a pre-up, you end up miserably, no money, no woman. But, living your life with a woman who is vain and greedy, you are going to waste quite some good years on her.


I am too old fashioned and set in my ways for a prenup myself. 

Easy for me to say though, as my wife is today agreeable and not out to slit my throat and rip my heart out through that cut, as it is so often can be in divorces, to see the vindictiveness it is chilling to even think about.

But for my sons, I am of the mind now to encourage them to at least learn about prenuptuals.

Especially if they find themselves going some years without getting married, and become financially and career wise established, and live a successful goal oriented lifestyle. 

THen it is something else entirely, the temptation of material gain is also in the mix at that point for many women who see such an independent, single man.

Now, as one son currently a mere college student, and the other only soon to be, the financial and material aspect is not so much in the cards.



> If you do want to sigh a pre-up, you have to do it tactfully, because it shows the distrust attitude, it is preparing for a divorce, it is like you are not confident with the person, you are telling him or her that we might not be together forever, it is not a good feeling to start at the beginning of the marriage.


I wonder if there are statistics to say whether a prenup correllates with higher divorce?

Perhaps those with foresight and financial needs that would expect a prenup, are the type of people who are also forward thinking enough to marry a good match?

Would this offset any initial feelings of distrust and "preparing for divorce" befoer the marriage even starts? :scratchhead:



> We are not rich people, so we don't have this problem. But when my ex asked me if I wanted my own account( he was going to give me personal money to save), I said no, I gained his trust. He let me be in charge of his money, everything was in his name. When we divorced, since everything was in his name, he got everything. Do I regret? NO! I chose to leave, I chose to end, I left, I caused him pain, he has my son, leaving all money to him is like leaving all the money to my son. I am happy that they are having a financially secure life. My husband requested to put our money together, he said no separate bank account. I know that a lot of couples have separate bank accounts, my money, your money, it also shows distrust. Since trust is so important to have in a successful marriage, being distrustful is not a good sign. Trust is not only about infidelity. We put our money together, I manage money well, he lost some in 2008, but who doesn't make mistakes in his life, I didn't blame him much. He still wants to invest in the market one day, which is different from me, I am just a saver. I get bothered thinking of him losing money in the market. But if he still wants to do it, we have agreed not to be aggressive. Invest something we are able to lose, if we lose, we lose, if we gain, we gain. I don't want money to hinder in our loving relationship.


My romantic side agrees with this.

My defensive father side, thinking of my sons being taken advantage of, is pulling the other way.



> But how many women are there like me??? I am not bragging. I think I am a very understanding and supportive wife. I am not vain, I don't waste our money. How many women can win their men's trust by thinking for the men all the time?


I am hoping, from some 3 billion or so women, that my sons can find for themselves each a good woman! 

Call me an optimist. 



> And how many men there can prove themselves to be faithful forever and committed?


All women who wish to be married, I wish them to find such men as well! 



> BBW, I am a pessimist about marriage too. How many happy marriages are there on the forum? Bob said that TAM is a big hospital for unhappy marriages, but in real life, how many happy marriages are there? I don't see many in my real life.


I spoke to my wife about this just this morning, out of the closest of friends and families, there are only a handful I would suspect as happy.

As well, I am paying attention to my own feelings of marriage since coming to this board, and seeing the destruction and pain, it is disheartening to see.

A big hospital for unhappy marriages, this is a good analogy. I will keep it in mind to help with perspective.



> But since we are human, we are men and women. A man needs a woman to be complete, a woman needs a man to be complete, we have to gamble.
> 
> So when we choose a spouse, we have to be careful(I made a careless mistake). But if we fail, we fail, it is just life, we make mistakes. Wish our life is smooth, but always be prepared for rough times. That's my attitude now.
> 
> I respect you as a man and as a helper for the forum!!!



Thank for for sharing these thoughts.


----------



## greenpearl

Wolf, 

I am very tired today, so tired that I can't function properly. 

You are two years older than me. Just found out today. But when you are talking about your 20 year-old-son, I don't know why, I just think you are very mature, I mean mature as a MAN. 

As parents, we want to protect our children, sons and daughters. We can give them good guidance, prepare for them to fly freely and happily. It is always good for them to know what might await for them in the future. 

I do suggest checking out some books written by religious groups about marriage and family, I find those books very helpful. Witnesses have a book called The Secret of FAMILY HAPPINESS
That is a very good book for us to read. I am sure you can get it from where you live since they are everywhere. Don't let them bother you, though. But they do have very good books and magazines. 

I am happy to see us regulars here often sharing our life and thinking together. 

Happy for you. 

Happy for all of us.


----------



## Mom6547

Scannerguard said:


> Not sure I agree with that too.
> 
> Stats show a zero correlation (perhaps a slight negative) between couples who live together prior to marriage and divorce.
> 
> We lived together prior to marriage.
> 
> I don't think it prepared us for marriage.


Not by itself. But as part of a bigger exploratory process. Learning about your partner, learning about yourself. Learning what things you had never considered might irritate the crap out of you. Learning whether or not you work successfully together at solving them.

It goes hand in hand with learning communication skills, lvoe language skills...

By itself it would not seem to add much value. Living together with your head in the sand would not help, I wouldn't think.


----------



## Mom6547

Scannerguard said:


> Before you openly go demonstrating your biases towards the Catholic Church by hurling insults, you should do some research.
> 
> The Church has relaxed their position on married couples having sex.
> 
> They are allowed to do it for sole pursuit of pleasure.
> 
> How about that?
> 
> Now, will you be so kind as to admit you were wrong?


Cite please. So they can use BC to enjoy their pleasure? Nope. They have to be open to God's procreation. Even in poverty stricken countries.




> You misunderstand my point. . .a person doesn't have to engage in an activity to give advice on it.


I just don't agree. I could never ever ever give good advice on how to handle a divorce. I could go to school to learn about divorce counseling. I could hang around divorced couples.... I am never going to have the depth of understanding that someone who has gone through it has. 

When I was looking for an addiction counselor, I went to one who clearly had a lot of book learnin'. He had no understanding of what I was talking about when I spoke to him. He would misattribute motives, assume incorrectly... Then I went to a recovering addict. Completely different story.

Like anything, I am sure this is not universal. I am sure that there are individual differences. The couple of talented empathetic priests...




> If we aspired to that, every politician would be a crook.


You mean they aren't?!?


----------



## Mom6547

BigBadWolf said:


> One of my peeves, and I will temper this in giving advice to others, but here in my own thread I will speak bluntly, that one of my peeves is the notion that a woman is okay to leave a man merely if is she is bored, and and even with many children, on a whim is free to leave to seek greener pastures or whatever.


This forum is fascinating! Thanks for all these thoughts! (And I am NOT being sarcastic. I love this kind of discussion.)




> Now I know what the argument is, that a man can do the same thing. And on this I will not argue, but this is my experience and my opinion, that during a divorce, the man is easily stripped of material possessions and access to his children almost without blinking, and the woman is perfectly free to do this as many times without consequence.


It SEEMS that the good news is that this is getting better in many states. My Mom is a lawyer in one state. She tells of much less gender bias in custody disputes.There is still a LOOOONG way to go.

It is like the swinging of a pendulum. Alimony laws were put in place back when women were not expected to earn their own money. They were the home maker, the mother and the man' jewelery. It was meant to protect a woman when a man decided to run off with the secretary and started back in the day of FAULT divorce.

It is an antiquated way of doing things but the laws have not really caught up. If I could work my will, the ONLY alimony support would be for a stay at home parent for a reasonable duration to get back to being employable. (This is an issue near and dear to my heart since my employ-ability as a software engineer has suffered since I have been home with the kids.) Custody would be 50/50 legal and physical by default. The idea that women are some how better parents is absurd.



> This makes me practically break out in a cold sweat to imagine my own children to involve themselves in something like this, although I know that is often how life works out.


Teach your daughters to be responsible for their own financial wellbeing! Not to rely on some MAN for their upkeep! I wonder if there are lessons on avoiding gold diggers?



> So this is why I am rethinking my attitude to prenuptual agreements.
> 
> And also why I am posting this thread.
> 
> I want to work on balance between my nostalgic romantic notions and my skeptical cynicism, to find the proper way to advise my sons of the reality of such relationships, leading to marriage.
> 
> There is much to try to distil to a simple set of thoughts, so again I appreciate everyone who takes the time to share.


For ME, the most important element in insulating the kids from this kind of thing is teaching them. Teaching them what constitutes healthy attitudes. I have this vision of my kids being able to judge a person's character and saying, that person is not a high quality individual and cannot be trusted to honor their word.

That may be naive. I hope I am not doing the kids wrong.


----------



## Mom6547

BigBadWolf said:


> But I am seeking a balance between that and the promiscuous lifestyle that I see flaunted among college age young people, and that I see played out similarly though not as blatant in my workplace and social circles.


I don't see/know much about sexually promiscuous lifestyle. For me, if there was objection to it, it would be based not on the fact of sex but on the absence of responsibility, caring, respect and the like.



> I am going to think about this, particularly the part about not being until death.
> 
> What you are describing is not traditional marriage, but something different. Perhaps it will be what marriage evolves into eventually.


No, no. This is BEFORE marriage. This is the growing up to be done before choosing one's life mate. While dating you start exploring things like discussing birth control, how to be responsible, exploring sexuality with your gf or bf BEFORE committing to death do you part by way of helping you know how to chose the appropriate one for until death do you part.



> Intriguing.
> 
> 
> 
> What you are describing, to temper sexual experience with deliberate respect, to do this properly, I agree is not an addiction.
> 
> But sexual attraction is a very powerful force, and can easily consume even the most noble and innocent intentions.
> 
> To be able to see a woman as a woman, and not either be worshipping her from sexual addiction, or resenting her from lack of respect, this is what I would like to pave the way for my sons.


How do I ask this without imply insult.... Are you religious? Or from the South? The reason I ask is that this dichotomy does not exist for most of the men I know. But most of the people I hang out with are either a-religious or atheist. And we live in the North East. Women are just human people, not that different from men. They like to rock climb, hike, snowboard and run with their bfs. I think the different PoV is really interesting. 

When I was younger, a practicing Catholic from a good Catholic family, this dichotomy WAS prevalent. I never understood why it was ok to judge a GIRL for the behavior of a boy AND a girl. If a boy and a girl were petting, the girl was BAD but the boy was just doing what boys do. And my parents were trying to teach me about gender equality. Very confusing.




> Never to see a woman as either an angel or a demon, but maybe an exciting and dynamic combination of both!


And above all things, a person. A weak, smart, caring, jerky ... human being.


----------



## Scannerguard

Vthomeschoolmom:

Regarding your request for citation that I back up my position that the Catholic Church doesn't allow for sex in a marraige for the sole pursuit of pleasure:

A. First of all, the one who makes the outrageous claim carries the burden of citing evidence.

So, I ask for you to cite evidence to back up your position of:

"Don't you know that the Catholic Church doesn't allow married couples to enjoy sex?"

B. Here is a link to discredit your position:

Marital Sexuality in Catholic Marriages

It indirectly links and references the Baltimore Cathecism. There is nothing saying a married couple can't get "horny" and go "have sex." In fact, the Church is saying it's concerned married couples aren't having enough sex.

And yes, of course the couple has to be open to having a kid every time they have sex. If you have a position against birth control and they are advocating a couple have sex, well, you do the math. Notice, they use the word "Open" - I think it's a carefully chosen word. It doesn't mean you can't hedge your bets the other way but it adopts a mature view that there is no perfect birth control anyway.

In case you didnt' get the memo, there are millions of pill babies, condom babies, coitus interruptus babies, even a few vascetomy and tubal ligation babies.

So. . .if a couple isn't "open" to a pregnancy after sex. . .well, I do question that couple.

Now. . .I don't want to go off on tangents of the Catholic Church of population control and other issues you may have (all perhaps I may agree or disagree with). . .the issue was the fact that you somehow thought the Catholic Church had a Puritanical View of Sex in Marriage.

Do you know any Catholics?

LOL.

I mean "Good Little Catholics"?

Their marital sex life is anything but Puritanical if you saw how many kids a "good Catholic" has.

The Puritans were the ones with the Puritanical views on marital sex.

Yes, our country was formed by Religious Radicals.

Just remember they weren't Catholics, lol. They came into the country, oh a few hundred years later.


----------



## Mom6547

Scannerguard said:


> Vthomeschoolmom:
> 
> And yes, of course the couple has to be open to having a kid every time they have sex.


I guess that rather negates the idea that a married couple can have sex JUST for fun. Emphasis on JUST. 



> If you have a position against birth control and they are advocating a couple have sex, well, you do the math. Notice, they use the word "Open" - I think it's a carefully chosen word. It doesn't mean you can't hedge your bets the other way but it adopts a mature view that there is no perfect birth control anyway.


With natural family planning only. The one method that is SOOOO unreliable as to be really open to God's procreative will. Pope Clement was very, very recently on the news for denouncing condom use in the poorest and most Aids infected places in Africa for this very reason.

How is that really hedging any bets? How is this allowing for sex just for fun?




> In case you didnt' get the memo, there are millions of pill babies, condom babies, coitus interruptus babies, even a few vascetomy and tubal ligation babies.


That affects the fact that none of those are supposed to be allowed to Catholics, how? I still would rather use one (or more if I were smart which I am so we do) of these supposedly terribly unreliable methods than the rythm method of natural family planning!



> Do you know any Catholics?


Why? I was raised Catholic my whole life. I spent one year of my life in a school that was NOT Catholic.



> Their marital sex life is anything but Puritanical if you saw how many kids a "good Catholic" has.


So... how does that make them anything other than hypocritical then? Are we still talking about birth control? So they call themselves Catholic and ignore Catholic doctrine....



> Just remember they weren't Catholics, lol. They came into the country, oh a few hundred years later.


They still have messed up views on sex. Why buy the cow when the milk is free. Sex is a tool women use to get a husband but they sure aren't supposed to enjoy it. Good girls don't do anything but boys do. It's just boys being boys. 

I lives these attitudes my whole life. Thank goodness I met my husband!

If attitudes have changed, great! But I don't see much evidence for that.


----------



## BigBadWolf

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I don't see/know much about sexually promiscuous lifestyle. For me, if there was objection to it, it would be based not on the fact of sex but on the absence of responsibility, caring, respect and the like.


In my experience, our sexual behavior is the outward manifestation of how we view ourselves and others.

This is why, as a man, sex is not just the physical act, but the wild and primal and highest and darkest and deepest emotoinal components that go along with it.

I do not view sex as merely recreational, in any sense of the word. 

It is not mere masturbation into the body of someone else.

Sex is a connection, very emotoinal and very powerful.

To those that ignore these connections, mainly in the modern academic and feminist leanings but many other philosophies do this as well be sure, to seperate the physical part of sexual relations from the emotional parts, are as if cutting a living thing in half and expecting it to behave as a healthy whole.



> No, no. This is BEFORE marriage. This is the growing up to be done before choosing one's life mate. While dating you start exploring things like discussing birth control, how to be responsible, exploring sexuality with your gf or bf BEFORE committing to death do you part by way of helping you know how to chose the appropriate one for until death do you part.


I see, this is living together before marriage then? Or extended courtship?



> How do I ask this without imply insult.... Are you religious? Or from the South?


Not easily insulted.  

And No and Yes.



> The reason I ask is that this dichotomy does not exist for most of the men I know.


Are these men nice guys or are they assexual?



> But most of the people I hang out with are either a-religious or atheist. And we live in the North East.


Academics? Feminist leanings?



> Women are just human people, not that different from men.


I do not understand what you are saying here at all. :scratchhead:



> They like to rock climb, hike, snowboard and run with their bfs. I think the different PoV is really interesting.


I dunno, a place with assexual men and women? 

Personally I would be seeking a quick death. 



> When I was younger, a practicing Catholic from a good Catholic family, this dichotomy WAS prevalent. I never understood why it was ok to judge a GIRL for the behavior of a boy AND a girl. If a boy and a girl were petting, the girl was BAD but the boy was just doing what boys do.


I have not forgotten to be young. I would assume boys and girls are still in this modern day both intersested in sex.




> And my parents were trying to teach me about gender equality. Very confusing.


Gender equality is a notion that confuses by definition. 



> And above all things, a person. A weak, smart, caring, jerky ... human being.




THank you for these thoughts.


----------



## Scannerguard

> I guess that rather negates the idea that a married couple can have sex JUST for fun. Emphasis on JUST.


No, why would it negate it? A married couple wants to have fun. . .they are horny, they go up the bedroom and have sex and fun.

They don't have to go in with the intent to procreate. It has to be accepted as a possible side effect and outcome though. Just as it has to be accepted the couple may be infertile.

I am not sure what's so hard about this.

The infertile and the fertile couple get to enjoy sex.

If that was the case, and what you were saying was true, the CAtholic Church would command infertile couples to immediately stop having sex and they don't.

They fully recognize sex is an act of bonding.

(those radicals!)



> With natural family planning only. The one method that is SOOOO unreliable as to be really open to God's procreative will. Pope Clement was very, very recently on the news for denouncing condom use in the poorest and most Aids infected places in Africa for this very reason.
> 
> How is that really hedging any bets? How is this allowing for sex just for fun?


This point is moot and entirelyoff topic. If your definition of "Fun Sex" is sex with 0% chance of a baby, well, you live in a fantasy world.

Like I said, there are millions of pill babies and even an occasional vasectomy baby.



> Quote:
> In case you didnt' get the memo, there are millions of pill babies, condom babies, coitus interruptus babies, even a few vascetomy and tubal ligation babies.
> 
> That affects the fact that none of those are supposed to be allowed to Catholics, how? I still would rather use one (or more if I were smart which I am so we do) of these supposedly terribly unreliable methods than the rythm method of natural family planning!


You're babbling, vthomeschoolmom.



> Quote:
> Do you know any Catholics?
> 
> Why? I was raised Catholic my whole life. I spent one year of my life in a school that was NOT Catholic.


Yet, you seem unfamiliar with Catholic doctrine.

Were you properly "cathetchized", vthomeschoolmom? 

Or were you just sitting there in a rebellious stupor against those mean nuns? 



> Quote:
> Their marital sex life is anything but Puritanical if you saw how many kids a "good Catholic" has.
> 
> So... how does that make them anything other than hypocritical then? Are we still talking about birth control? So they call themselves Catholic and ignore Catholic doctrine....


I am not sure what you are babbling about now, vthomeschoolmom.

Something about birth control, I was raised Catholic, and Catholics are hypocrits and anyone who educates me or says something positive of Catholic doctrine deserves attack.

You honestly need to get a grip.

I was only saying Catholic doctrine allows for "recreational sex" between a married couple, that the act doesn't have to be like a "medical procedure" to generate offspring or for an entirely procreative purpose like you misinformed the forum.



> They still have messed up views on sex. Why buy the cow when the milk is free. Sex is a tool women use to get a husband but they sure aren't supposed to enjoy it. Good girls don't do anything but boys do. It's just boys being boys.
> 
> I lives these attitudes my whole life. Thank goodness I met my husband!


Yes, yes, Catholic doctrine on sexual mores is messed up. Vthomeschoolmom has everything figured out.

Got it.



You would actually be interested to know how sexual Catholic doctrine is.

For instance, you are speaking like the woman having pleasure in sex is against Catholic Doctrine. You are forwarding Puritanical views again (where do these come from from you?).

Wrong again. 

Did you know, like most major religions, there is a law against the man "spilling his seed?" So, oral stimulation is allowed on the man, but the man is only to release in the woman's vagina. However, the man is certainly allowed (and encouraged when you get to the nitty-gritty) to go down on the woman as it "prepares" her body for the sexual encounter. (the laying of the seed, lol - those Catholics are into producing offspring, lol)

I don't know about you, but this is the way this "lapsed Catholic" likes to go about sex. A good half hour to one hour of cunnilingus with multiple orgasms and one screaming one from me, alll with a one way ticket to eternal bliss and heaven on earth 

Not enough talk on here with all the possible religious experience with sex (Tantric, etc.).

I will agree though that Catholics are very strict about premarital/extramarital sex though. Different subject.


----------



## Scannerguard

> When I was younger, a practicing Catholic from a good Catholic family, this dichotomy WAS prevalent. I never understood why it was ok to judge a GIRL for the behavior of a boy AND a girl. If a boy and a girl were petting, the girl was BAD but the boy was just doing what boys do. And my parents were trying to teach me about gender equality. Very confusing.


Now. . .off of Catholic doctrine, I think you are right.

Assuming you are about my age (I am 42), I have noticed there is a difference nowadays. 

When I was young, the women were the "keeper of the mores". In other words, if you were to talk to most women here about my age, it was common for the boys to plead, cajole, try to seduce the woman into sex/1rst base/2nd base/3rd base and it was the woman's job to say "No. We shouldn't." Not that even a good girl didn't. . .we kinda knew all girls, good and bad, eventually did. . .but at least a good girl would put up a fight for awhile.

Let's make it clear - talk to any Priest worth his salt - neither shouldn't. So a Priest would not give a blessing to a boy trying to get laid.

But culturally, yes, the girls were assigned that role as "keeper of the mores."

That is no longer.

Nowadays, I do worry about my boys. Thanks to sexual liberation, I think my own boys (to bring this topic back onto BBW's point) will have to deal with girls, 13, 14, 15 years old demanding a sex life from them, not the other way around.

In fact, I think this did sort of start in the 80's a bit. My best friend tells me of the story of this girl, when he was in 8th grade, complaining he did not want to go any further. He still talks about this to me yearssss later, about how humiliated he felt as she went and hooked up with a 11th grader for sex because he wasn't "man enough." I mean, Lord, I told him, he was in 8th grade! Of course he wasn't man enough, LOL (we laugh about this now).

But while that was an anomaly then, I think this is more prevalent now.

Think of the women here complaining about their men not performing on the sex forum and subtract a few decades and I think you have a snapshot of teenage life.

This is the way I see it.

As a parent of 3 boys, the oldest an 8th grader, I admit I am a bit befuddled.

How do I tell him to resist that when one of your nubile young daughters, with breasts abouncing, puts it out there for my boys (and I am sure all of your daughters are innocent, as are my boys and would never do such a thing)?

The girls have almost become worse, or at least, equal to the boys in caddishness from my casual observation.

Disconnecting sex from pregnancy has left our society with no keeper of the sexual mores.


----------



## Scannerguard

PS: Let me add one more thing (a boring night in CAT scan for me): once in awhile, I am able to sneak a sex talk in with my boys.

I try to plant "seeds for meditation."

I woudl tell my 13 year old that sexual experience, and he'll obviously be wanting it like any guy, unless he is not going to be a sexual person, is really had in 2 dimensions - 

A. Breadth
B. Depth

A guy who has bedded a lot of women, while men may be jealous of that guy, don't necessarily have the skill to please a woman because they haven't found the depth to please women. Admittedly, they've experienced a lot of women though and how each one is different.

Learning to please a woman takes time, study, practice, and patience. I beleive it takes a good 6 months at least of trial and error before you two get in sync as a couple. Let's face it - usually the first couple of times is "for the guy", although that's a generalization, cause the guy is so dorked up. Once he calms down, he can settle in.

Anyway, my experience as a man has been depth, for sure, not breadth.

I am not sure how I will get that message across in a non "weird-Dad-way" but that has been a blessing of divorce in a way - they tend to see me more as a "guy" now vs. a normal Dad who just was with Mom.

I just don't want them to think they have to go out and be "man-wh#res" and have notches on their bedpost.

So I may use that to my advantage, if there is any lemonade out of the lemon of divorce.

Anyway, he's 13. . .it's right before the "big game". . .once the hormones are going, it's like the game is going. He won't be listening because he's under the influence and in the game. YOu can only hope he remembers what Coach Dad said. A coach at that point can only shout a few things. 

A good "game day" speech before he gets thrown to the sharks (your daughters ) is necessary.


----------



## Mom6547

Scannerguard said:


> How do I tell him to resist that when one of your nubile young daughters, with breasts abouncing, puts it out there for my boys (and I am sure all of your daughters are innocent, as are my boys and would never do such a thing)?


Oh good an easy question! You think long and hard and deep with your mind, your heart and your soul about why you want them to resist. What do you value. What are your hopes for them. And you tell them! 



> The girls have almost become worse, or at least, equal to the boys in caddishness from my casual observation.
> 
> Disconnecting sex from pregnancy has left our society with no keeper of the sexual mores.


We have new sexual mores. I, personally, APPROVE of them. I think no sex until marriage is nuts.


----------



## BigBadWolf

Scannerguard said:


> PS: Let me add one more thing (a boring night in CAT scan for me): once in awhile, I am able to sneak a sex talk in with my boys.
> 
> I try to plant "seeds for meditation."
> 
> I woudl tell my 13 year old that sexual experience, and he'll obviously be wanting it like any guy, unless he is not going to be a sexual person, is really had in 2 dimensions -
> 
> A. Breadth
> B. Depth
> 
> A guy who has bedded a lot of women, while men may be jealous of that guy, don't necessarily have the skill to please a woman because they haven't found the depth to please women. Admittedly, they've experienced a lot of women though and how each one is different.


Thank you for this!

This is very much how I am feeling, to see it worded so simply is perfect.

I agree, give me depth 1000 times for any breadth.

Myself, how to attract a woman, this is really at most too easy and not impressive to hear some number of women that some man is to have sexually.

In fact to be blunt, I would worry there are more concerns if some man indeed needed to seek happiness in this type of sport.

But speaking sexually, to continue to increase my skill with these other mysteries, of the various types of orgasms in a woman, creative use of tongue and fingers to produce simultaneous orgasm, to lead to an orgasm with little or no touching whatsover, to "ride the wave" of orgasm lasting many minutes at a time, to speak of these things, I am all ears!  



> Learning to please a woman takes time, study, practice, and patience. I beleive it takes a good 6 months at least of trial and error before you two get in sync as a couple. Let's face it - usually the first couple of times is "for the guy", although that's a generalization, cause the guy is so dorked up. Once he calms down, he can settle in.
> 
> Anyway, my experience as a man has been depth, for sure, not breadth.


I appreciate these thougts.



> I am not sure how I will get that message across in a non "weird-Dad-way" but that has been a blessing of divorce in a way - they tend to see me more as a "guy" now vs. a normal Dad who just was with Mom.


I have been deliberate to expand the relationship with my sons, as they have come of the appropriate age, to be open together about these things.

Young men are yearning to have guidance in these matters.

But like any man, they are not wanting to appear desperate, but to learn in their own time, as the questions come up, or the conversations happen, it is good to ask bluntly sometimes about this or that, and to relate in experience, to show the young man that he is not alone in this discovery of sexuality.

Also, this is necessary to spend time together doing other things, to allow these opportunities to happen. This is no different than any relationship actually.

I look for opportunities to do "man stuff" together with my sons, this is where the best conversations happen. 



> I just don't want them to think they have to go out and be "man-wh#res" and have notches on their bedpost.


100 percent agreed.



To be this guy, is not the goal:
















> So I may use that to my advantage, if there is any lemonade out of the lemon of divorce.
> 
> Anyway, he's 13. . .it's right before the "big game". . .once the hormones are going, it's like the game is going. He won't be listening because he's under the influence and in the game. YOu can only hope he remembers what Coach Dad said. A coach at that point can only shout a few things.
> 
> A good "game day" speech before he gets thrown to the sharks (your daughters ) is necessary.


A winning attitude, indeed.


----------



## BigBadWolf

vthomeschoolmom said:


> We have new sexual mores. I, personally, APPROVE of them. I think no sex until marriage is nuts.


I am not sure what you mean by new sexual mores.

Is this that a woman is free to be sexual with her man? If so, I agree.

Is this that a woman is encouraged to be sexual with many men? If so I would not agree.

However, in my own beliefs, I am not requiring perfect abstinence.

I did not wait until marriage, nor would I expect my sons or my daughter to be abstinent merely for the sake of abstinence.

For my sons, I will say to avoid any woman who is demanding with sex herself, or who has had many partners.

This is to avoid diseases, and to be blunt, women who have many sexual encounters will be carrying some STD of some sort more often than not.

This is also to avoid a woman that is seeing a relationship with a man as disposable.

This is also to avoid a woman who will learn to have a low view of a man, considering the class of men that would engage in promiscuous sex would color her opinion of all men lowly.

This is also to avoid a woman that is quick to believe that with sex, it is easy to control a man. As under no circumstance do I believe it is proper for a man to be controlled by a woman's sexual promises, and this I firmly instruct my sons.


Thoughts on these matters, agreeing or not, I would enjoy seeing.


----------



## Mom6547

BigBadWolf said:


> In my experience, our sexual behavior is the outward manifestation of how we view ourselves and others.
> 
> This is why, as a man, sex is not just the physical act, but the wild and primal and highest and darkest and deepest emotoinal components that go along with it.
> 
> I do not view sex as merely recreational, in any sense of the word.


You add the word "merely." I wonder why. 


> It is not mere masturbation into the body of someone else.
> 
> Sex is a connection, very emotoinal and very powerful.
> 
> To those that ignore these connections, mainly in the modern academic and feminist leanings but many other philosophies do this as well be sure, to seperate the physical part of sexual relations from the emotional parts, are as if cutting a living thing in half and expecting it to behave as a healthy whole.



I guess you and I just don't agree on the nature of sex. I think your attribution of motivation is a bit weird as well.

Let's start with the nature of sex. It can be a vehicle for very strong emotional connection. But I don't agree that it IS the emotional connection. The emotional connection must exist in order for sex to bring it forth. But sex can be many things, including satisfaction of our natural, animal urges. When I think of fun, recreational sex, I imagine something different than you do. Often it engenders an emotional connection of its own, to a different degree and with a different flavor than the one achieved with my true love.

I think it is a mistake to sanctify and glorify sex the way you do. First it feeds the anti-sexual, not until marriage mindset. For so many people this is a direct path to marital sexual incompatibility. We see how well marriages fare with that. It also sets an unrealistic expectation of the power of sex to MAKE and BUILD a connection that it can't if the connection is not there. 

So onto motivation attribution... I think it is interesting that you think people (what was it? academics and feminists) "ignore" the emotional elements of sex. That describes a WILL to subjugate the emotion. I wonder why you think anyone would want to do that?

There is a lot wrong with the modern "feminist" man hating movement, though I can understand where it comes from given the history of women hating. But it seems to me that, if anything, sexual freedom for women has enhanced the ability for a couple to share that emotional connection with full participation from both parties rather than having the woman's sexuality owned by her man.





> I see, this is living together before marriage then? Or extended courtship?


Education. 




> Are these men nice guys or are they assexual?


I don't buy any of your nice guy theories. My husband is a "nice guy." Always has been. And has never had trouble getting dates. Somehow he manages to not be an *******. And is STILL masculine.


----------



## Mom6547

BigBadWolf said:


> Thoughts on these matters, agreeing or not, I would enjoy seeing.


I would agree with most of this if you replaced "woman" with "person" and it were gender neutral, though I don't have a problem with multiple partners. I think it is a GOOD idea. And I think it is very possible, even likely, that you can do this safely without contracting STDs.


----------



## Mom6547

BigBadWolf said:


> Gender equality is a notion that confuses by definition.


I find misogyny to be much more confusing. How can you NOT know that only small, weak insignificant people have to deny the value of another to pull themselves up? And why would you ever want to love someone or something that is lesser than you. Positively weird.


----------



## BigBadWolf

vthomeschoolmom said:


> You add the word "merely." I wonder why.


Because sex is certainly fun and thrilling!



> I guess you and I just don't agree on the nature of sex. I think your attribution of motivation is a bit weird as well.


Sexual motivation, there is little that is as powerful to motivate a man to do what is necessary to win and keep his woman, and for his woman to do what is needed to win and keep her man.



> Let's start with the nature of sex. It can be a vehicle for very strong emotional connection. But I don't agree that it IS the emotional connection.


To seperate sex from the emotional connection, it is practically impossible.

The trouble is, the emotional connection are often negative.

If a man is not respecting a woman, or the woman is not respecting a man, or if either is not respecting himself, the emotional connection is not positive, but it is there.

Sexual abuse, this is negative emotionally and very damaging. 

Casual sex, promiscuous sex, these are shades of the same grey.

Our very esteem is tied up in how we perceive ourselves sexually.

To deny this, is to try to deny the very fabrice that makes us a man or woman.



> The emotional connection must exist in order for sex to bring it forth.


For men, this is opposite. The primal urge comes first, the emotoinal bond comes afterwards.

For a woman, she must in her primal places have the emotional component first, then open herself to receive the sexual pleasure.

So men like pornography pictures, women like erotic fantasies and soap operas. 



> But sex can be many things, including satisfaction of our natural, animal urges.


Actually I rarely would seperate anything sexual from the primal prime movers inside ourselves. 



> When I think of fun, recreational sex, I imagine something different than you do. Often it engenders an emotional connection of its own, to a different degree and with a different flavor than the one achieved with my true love.


Perhaps we are more similar in this regard.

Although I have rarely met the woman I am not attracted to sexually, any fantasies are only fantasies, as the reality with my wife, my "true love" if you will, is far far far different.

But even with my 'true love', the initial attraction, was sexual attraction.



> I think it is a mistake to sanctify and glorify sex the way you do.


Where women can easily dismiss the physical nature of sex as unimportant, to a man it is critical to his emotoinal health and sexual view of himself. 



> First it feeds the anti-sexual, not until marriage mindset.


First, feeding or not feeding some political agenda can all go to hell and burn for all I care. 

I support what works, and leave alone what does not work. 

I am a simple man. 



> For so many people this is a direct path to marital sexual incompatibility. We see how well marriages fare with that.


Marriages rise and fall in how the man and woman in the marriage effect, and are affected by, the sexual relationship they establish and maintain.

Sex is the principal motivator, all else is secondary.

We as humans can and do adapt to our surrounding quite seemlessly when we are motivated to.





> It also sets an unrealistic expectation of the power of sex to MAKE and BUILD a connection that it can't if the connection is not there.


Thus the futility of a man trying to be sexual with a woman, when he is merely in the "friend zone".

All the "compatiblity" talk in the world is hot air, if there is no sexual attraction to begin with.

Sex is the motivation for sexual relationships.

Marriage is a sexual relationship. 



> So onto motivation attribution... I think it is interesting that you think people (what was it? academics and feminists) "ignore" the emotional elements of sex.


Besides religious leaders and politicians, academics and feminists are the next most dishonest and untrustworthy people I am aware of. 



> That describes a WILL to subjugate the emotion. I wonder why you think anyone would want to do that?


They will lie, for their personal control of others. This is for material or political gains at the expense of others. This is always the case.



> There is a lot wrong with the modern "feminist" man hating movement, though I can understand where it comes from given the history of women hating.


Women hating, men hating. Two sides of the same coin. I have little use for that coin as a whole. 



> But it seems to me that, if anything, sexual freedom for women has enhanced the ability for a couple to share that emotional connection with full participation from both parties rather than having the woman's sexuality owned by her man.


On paper, this may sound reasonable.

But really, to see this played out, is the woman is told all this bliss and happiness is to come by wrestling sexual control from the man. 

But this is an illusion she should (or even could) control a man. 

The problem, is nature.

A woman, she is sexually stimulated by the man that is dominant.

The man, he is sexually stimulated by the woman who submits to his dominance.

So this is the structure of sexual attraction, that a man strives to dominate, a woman strives to be dominated.

Whether a couple decides to build a relationship contrary to this, or ignoring this, well, that is their choice of course.

But inviting a power struggle in every aspect of the relationship, this is why no one at all builds a car with two steering wheels.

And in the bedroom, this is indeed inviting a catastrophe! 

Give a woman control over a man, and if a man submits, this is not sexual.

The woman turns into a mother figure (nagging wife, perfectionist), the man turns into the juvenile (detached miserable bumbling oaf). 

And the relationship devolves from sexual (masculine dominate) to maternal (feminine dominant).

ANd over time, a woman will resent and hold contempt for the man that allows her to assume this role. 

A woman prone to nagging, angst, insecurity, perfectionism, these are the symptoms for this too common scenario.

A woman will resent a weak man.

A woman is irrestibly attracted to the dominant man.

As they say, power is seductive.  




> Education.


Education from knowing each other?

If so I agree.

Education from academic ivory towers?

Concerning men and women, hit or miss, but mostly miss.



> I don't buy any of your nice guy theories. My husband is a "nice guy." Always has been. And has never had trouble getting dates. Somehow he manages to not be an *******. And is STILL masculine.


That sounds nice.


----------



## BigBadWolf

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I would agree with most of this if you replaced "woman" with "person" and it were gender neutral, though I don't have a problem with multiple partners. I think it is a GOOD idea.


Mulitple partners, this is not good. 



> And I think it is very possible, even likely, that you can do this safely without contracting STDs.


This is simply false.

Most promiscuous women, have an STD.



Feminists, they do not want this truth to be public, because of political correctness.

Example, condoms, they are practically useless for preventing Herpes.

It is nothing religious that I shun my sons (and myself) from promicuous women.

It is nothing political that I shun my sons from promiscuous women.

It is just the reality of science and biology and nature.

A woman exposed to many men, and the many types of promiscuous men she will find, WILL be exposed to and likely carry some STD.



These are some of the facts: 

Healthy and Satisfied with Multiple Sex Partners | Single Minded Women



1. The U.S. is home to the highest rate of STD’s in the industrialized world.

2. Many infections can live undetected in the female body for years, during which time the end results can be infertility due to reproductive organ damage, susceptibility to further and more serious illnesses (like pelvic inflammatory disease and cervical cancer,) and of course, unwitting transmission of the infection to other people.

3. Bacterial STD’s — gonorrhea and Chlamydia, for example — are curable. Viral STD’s — herpes, hepatitis, HIV — are not; however, treatment for the symptoms is available. Once your body has a viral STD, you have it for life.


4. It is usually impossible to tell by look, touch, smell, or taste if someone has a sexually transmittable infection. The only way to know for sure is validated proof of testing.

5. STD’s are transmitted by sexually intimate contact — not just sexual intercourse. The transmission routes are blood, semen, vaginal fluid and, in some cases, skin to skin contact (as in passing a cold from hand-to-hand with the influence of mucus from sneezing. Wash your hands!)


----------



## BigBadWolf

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I find misogyny to be much more confusing. How can you NOT know that only small, weak insignificant people have to deny the value of another to pull themselves up? And why would you ever want to love someone or something that is lesser than you. Positively weird.


I agree.

Tell me where this misogyny is, so that we may call it names together.


----------



## Catherine602

I have to take issue with the concept that men are stripped of their possessions in a divorce. Do the assets belong to the husband alone? To accept the premise that all the assets that accrue during the union are his, presupposes that her contribution to his emotional satiability, happiness, longevity, mother to his children, house keeper, etc has little value to his success. 

It is too common that divorced men believe tis garbage, it shows a sad lack of appreciation for his wife's contribution to his life. He devalues all that she has done, it's a selfish ungrateful attitude. If his wife is a stay at home mother, she is actually working, all of her activities supports her husband being able to work and have a spouse at home to care for his kids. If he had to hire a nanny, housekeeper cook and general grunt to run errands, he would be out more money than it cost him to have a wife.

That's why the statutes were passed to support a woman share in half the assets. She did not go to work but the man is not doing the woman a favor by working he is taking the responsibility to provide for his children. She is working in the home.

As for a prenup, good luck in getting a "pure" girl to sign such a document. The best women will walk away, as they should. Hopefully you son's have more common sense than their father. You are advising your son's to marry a woman who has suppressed her sexuality to be a wife to some man, to be a good mother to his children, take care house and home and then to present her with a document appraising her value to him. That is so wrong headed it cannot be believed. 

No decent woman with a healthy sense of herself would sign the document. Moreover, if he is unlucky and she went ahead with the wedding, she would never forget his assumptions that she is not an equal partner in his success and may hold onto resentment. 

You might add something else to your list of advice to your son's - appreciate the woman they marry, value there contribution to their lives, be grateful for the gift of a good and steady wife. Many men make the mistake of of overlooking what the wife does and concentrate on what she does not do, and it causes problems, many of them enumerated on this forum. This devaluing is at the crux of many problems - I have read of many men who think they deserve to be serviced in exchange for supporting their families.


----------



## Catherine602

BigBadWolf said:


> Mulitple partners, this is not good.
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply false.
> 
> Most promiscuous women, have an STD.
> 
> 
> 
> Feminists, they do not want this truth to be public, because of political correctness.
> 
> Example, condoms, they are practically useless for preventing Herpes.
> 
> It is nothing religious that I shun my sons (and myself) from promicuous women.
> 
> It is nothing political that I shun my sons from promiscuous women.
> 
> It is just the reality of science and biology and nature.
> 
> A woman exposed to many men, and the many types of promiscuous men she will find, WILL be exposed to and likely carry some STD.
> 
> 
> 
> These are some of the facts:
> 
> Healthy and Satisfied with Multiple Sex Partners | Single Minded Women
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The U.S. is home to the highest rate of STD’s in the industrialized world.
> 
> 2. Many infections can live undetected in the female body for years, during which time the end results can be infertility due to reproductive organ damage, susceptibility to further and more serious illnesses (like pelvic inflammatory disease and cervical cancer,) and of course, unwitting transmission of the infection to other people.
> 
> 3. Bacterial STD’s — gonorrhea and Chlamydia, for example — are curable. Viral STD’s — herpes, hepatitis, HIV — are not; however, treatment for the symptoms is available. Once your body has a viral STD, you have it for life.
> 
> 
> 4. It is usually impossible to tell by look, touch, smell, or taste if someone has a sexually transmittable infection. The only way to know for sure is validated proof of testing.
> 
> 5. STD’s are transmitted by sexually intimate contact — not just sexual intercourse. The transmission routes are blood, semen, vaginal fluid and, in some cases, skin to skin contact (as in passing a cold from hand-to-hand with the influence of mucus from sneezing. Wash your hands!)


What about all the men who are sexually promiscuous? Do they somehow escape disease? I'm guessing that the woman must get the disease from another human, right? Not toilet seats. 

These are the men whom, after their wild years, marry the pure girls and bring some incurable hidden disease in to his blameless wife. Herpes virus for instance, asymtomatic in many instances, transmission not prevented by condoms, causes cervical and oral cancer. 

Feminist, you really think the big bad feminanazis are in control of the dissemination of information? How do they weld such power? If you think that is the case, you have a responsibility to start some kind of letting writing campaign to bring the dangers of unfettered female sexuality to light. 

If you are having problems with your wife you may want to look at your attitude towards her gender. But you are not talking about your pure wife, she is not a promiscuous disease ridden ****. Believe me, she dose everything she can to avoid that judgement from you. She is careful to keep a lid on her sexuality, much to your frustration, lest she lose your respect. Karma right it a right reward for your judgmental attitude, you suffer from your self-righteous intolerant attitude, as you should. 

Your faults are just as egregious, in the eyes of the Man upstairs as are any of the ones that you point your finger at. You better hope that someone like you is not taking your measure. Have you not learned - Judge not that ye may not be judged, it's in the good book and it's there for a reason.


----------



## michzz

Fun rant, but I'd like to point out that at least in the USA, and definitely in California where I live that my wife who cheated extensively can and will be given spousal support of some undetermined amount of about half my income until the day I die if we part.

That she exposed me to at least two different STDs is of no consequence. That she deprived me and our children of the honorable love and affection that a wife owes to her family is of no consequence.

That she deceived us all for essentially half our marriage doesn't mean squat. That I supported her in all ways a husband can, emotionally, intimately, monetarily, etc., doesn't matter.

All that matters to the state is that she gets to maintain the income she has/had in the marriage.

That she decided to be some guy's unpaid ***** and throw away her values and her fidelity? Doesn't matter.

Does it matter that spousal support is a relic of the old days when a wife didn't work outside the home?

Not one bit.


----------



## Mom6547

Catherine602 said:


> What about all the men who are sexually promiscuous? Do they somehow escape disease? I'm guessing that the woman must get the disease from another human, right? Not toilet seats.


It is an unfortunate joke of biology that it is a bit easier for women to catch from men than the other way around.

I think there is a tendency to overly freak out over STDs. The general STD statistics include things like HPV. Now I guess I would rather not have had to get pap smears annually instead of every two years back when I had HPV. But for me that was worth the risk of learning about my body, my sexuality and the compatibility with my now husband.

Anyone who is 100% risk averse when it comes to pregnancy and STD transmission, indeed, should have one partner and be married to them. But how can it come as a big surprise after the fact that a very important detail of marriage was left to change?

I do feel that some of the more conservative male posters like to over blow the risk of pregnancy when using bc. Of course no bc method is 100% effective. (Though one cannot get a very accurate picture of how often they are used correctly since people will lie to avoid looking like a fool. Or just BE a fool. My gyn told me of a woman who got pregnant by using grape jelly in her diaphragm. What if the gyn never thought to ask?) The risks can be greatly mitigated by using more than one kind of bc. And the education about ones body, available bc, risks and benefits are very helpful IMO.



> Feminist, you really think the big bad feminanazis are in control of the dissemination of information? How do they weld such power? If you think that is the case, you have a responsibility to start some kind of letting writing campaign to bring the dangers of unfettered female sexuality to light.


In my experience this sentiment is a result of fear and confusion. Uber alpha males like the old way better when they never had to think. Men were this, women were that. If they didn't get what they liked, they just used control and "superiority" to get it. There was a movie that DH and I quote while laughing hysterically. I forget the name of the movie, it was a fun but silly Sci Fi movie. At one point in the middle ages, the main character is annoyed by his wife. He yells "Do as I SAY, woman!" She leaps to obey.

But unfettered female sexuality is CHALLENGING. If women don't need men to dominate them in providership and sex, then what good are men for??!



> If you are having problems with your wife you may want to look at your attitude towards her gender. But you are not talking about your pure wife, she is not a promiscuous disease ridden ****. Believe me, she dose everything she can to avoid that judgement from you. She is careful to keep a lid on her sexuality, much to your frustration, lest she lose your respect.


That was my thought as well. There are big problems with looking at life as a series of generalizations and stereotypes. If a man wants to be MAN provider, what does he expect when he gets a gold digger? If a man wants a woman who is chaste, what does he expect when he gets one that runs out of steam in the bedroom at the age of 38? 

Of course the flip is true of women. If you marry a chekcbook, what do you expect when he never comes home and wants to hang with the boys?

Learn about your values, what is important about marriage to you. Then learn about YOUR PROSPECTIVE PARTNER and **** the gender role nonsense.


----------



## Mom6547

BigBadWolf said:


> A woman is irrestibly attracted to the dominant man.


I was going to attempt to reply to the entirety of the message. But then I got here. You know very little of how women operate, I can tell from your post. But of course, you know best. I am, after all... just a woman.


> As they say, power is seductive.


"They" say a lot of stupid stuff.


----------



## Mom6547

michzz said:


> That she exposed me to at least two different STDs is of no consequence. That she deprived me and our children of the honorable love and affection that a wife owes to her family is of no consequence.


Piece of advice to all genders. So long as you think your spouse OWES, then you are not doing YOUR job. AFAIC my job is to engender his love, commitment and desire, not wait for him to give it to me because I am OWED. 

Obviously deception is a pretty horrible policy. Did you meet HER needs? Or did she have to go outside to get them met?

Woe to the person who doesn't end it, but decides to cheat instead. But to the person who is cheated upon. The only person you can change is YOU, Make sure you don't repeat your mistakes next time.


----------



## Deejo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Piece of advice to all genders. So long as you think your spouse OWES, then you are not doing YOUR job. AFAIC my job is to engender his love, commitment and desire, not wait for him to give it to me because I am OWED.
> 
> Obviously deception is a pretty horrible policy. Did you meet HER needs? Or did she have to go outside to get them met?


Your on your second marriage right?


----------



## Mom6547

Deejo said:


> Your on your second marriage right?


No. Thank goodness I learned from my mistakes BEFORE I ended our first marriage. But that is the direction in which we were marching. I corrected them. Went to a different marriage board long ago. They gave totally different advice than you see on here. And it was GOOD advice. HARD advice, but good advice. The only person I could change was ME. I could rail against what he was doing until the cows came home. It would do no good. So I changed me. Luckily the result was a spirit of reciprocity in my husband.

We are in our 17th year of marriage. We could not be happier.

I used to worry why he didn't do this and didn't do that? Why didn't he listen to me? Why didn't he do what *I* wanted? He is the MAN, he is supposed to do the money. I do greater than half the earning, he should/he owes me housekeeping... Blah blah blah. Useless stuff.

Now I worry about how to know what he wants me to do. How do I listen to better understand him (give that we have both 2 different communication styles AND 2 different love languages)? How do I make him happier? I find the harder I do that, the more deposits into the love bank, the harder he tries to do the same. 

When we DO have to have a conversation about our own needs, we can be productive and proactive. We know the other guy is going to try to REALLY try to understand. (We accept that we are often going to fail, but knowing the other guy is really trying goes a LONG way.) We can make action plans with solutions in mind. We don't have to spend all our time defending our turf.

We have many of the symptoms people blame their failed marriage on. We decided to live on his income so I could be home with the kids. So kids and financial pressure. Check. We own a home. Stress, stress, stress. Yet we don't feel much stress in our day-to-day. He feels happy that I am continuing to try to get a handle on finances even though I have failed to do a perfect job in the past. (Just read Total Money Makeover. Holy cash envelope budget, batman! I had no idea how much I was spending on groceries and household nonsense!) He brings the jocularity and fun home in the evenings and weekends. We are a team and we face stuff together.

Lucky! Thank goodness for that group that handed my butt to me on a platter and got me to see the error of my ways.


----------



## michzz

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Piece of advice to all genders. So long as you think your spouse OWES, then you are not doing YOUR job. AFAIC my job is to engender his love, commitment and desire, not wait for him to give it to me because I am OWED.
> 
> Obviously deception is a pretty horrible policy. Did you meet HER needs? Or did she have to go outside to get them met?
> 
> Woe to the person who doesn't end it, but decides to cheat instead. But to the person who is cheated upon. The only person you can change is YOU, Make sure you don't repeat your mistakes next time.


I base that comment on our marriage vows. If she couldn't be an honorable person and live up to those vows she should have left.

I also didn't want her to stay just out of obligation--of course!

However, even if love has to be freely exchanged, living up to a vow taken before God, family , and friends should count as more than some quaint ritual.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547

michzz said:


> I base that comment on our marriage vows. If she couldn't be an honorable person and live up to those vows she should have left.
> 
> I also didn't want her to stay just out of obligation--of course!
> 
> However, even if love has to be freely exchanged, living up to a vow taken before God, family , and friends should count as more than some quaint ritual.


It should. It would be nice. That and a 5 spot will get you a Starbucks.


----------



## Deejo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> No. Thank goodness I learned from my mistakes BEFORE I ended our first marriage. But that is the direction in which we were marching. I corrected them. Went to a different marriage board long ago. They gave totally different advice than you see on here. And it was GOOD advice. HARD advice, but good advice. The only person I could change was ME. I could rail against what he was doing until the cows came home. It would do no good. So I changed me. Luckily the result was a spirit of reciprocity in my husband.
> 
> We are in our 17th year of marriage. We could not be happier.
> 
> I used to worry why he didn't do this and didn't do that? Why didn't he listen to me? Why didn't he do what *I* wanted? He is the MAN, he is supposed to do the money. I do greater than half the earning, he should/he owes me housekeeping... Blah blah blah. Useless stuff.
> 
> Now I worry about how to know what he wants me to do. How do I listen to better understand him (give that we have both 2 different communication styles AND 2 different love languages)? How do I make him happier? I find the harder I do that, the more deposits into the love bank, the harder he tries to do the same.
> 
> When we DO have to have a conversation about our own needs, we can be productive and proactive. We know the other guy is going to try to REALLY try to understand. (We accept that we are often going to fail, but knowing the other guy is really trying goes a LONG way.) We can make action plans with solutions in mind. We don't have to spend all our time defending our turf.
> 
> We have many of the symptoms people blame their failed marriage on. We decided to live on his income so I could be home with the kids. So kids and financial pressure. Check. We own a home. Stress, stress, stress. Yet we don't feel much stress in our day-to-day. He feels happy that I am continuing to try to get a handle on finances even though I have failed to do a perfect job in the past. (Just read Total Money Makeover. Holy cash envelope budget, batman! I had no idea how much I was spending on groceries and household nonsense!) He brings the jocularity and fun home in the evenings and weekends. We are a team and we face stuff together.
> 
> Lucky! Thank goodness for that group that handed my butt to me on a platter and got me to see the error of my ways.


Congratulations on turning the corner of your marriage. I like success stories. I really do. You used a few operative terms. 'Lucky' being the most prominent. Quite simply both you and your husband were willing to make changes and concessions to serve the marriage. Neither of you viewed those changes as too demanding or constraining.

Had you, or he, had an expectation or boundary that the other could not agree to, or continued to violate, then you are in the other 50% club. 

I'm not going to argue over what works for you. I fail to see why you choose to argue over what works for somebody else, or to acknowledge that what some of the men here are exploring is that concept that you have illustrated. The notion that "I can only change myself." Yet, because you don't like the turf upon which they are basing the change, you say "Why try to become someone that you aren't?" If who they are is a doormat that invariably ends up being taken advantage of and feels frustration - why is it 'sexist' if they want to become better men? Your contributions are fundamentally contradictory.


----------



## michzz

vthomeschoolmom said:


> It should. It would be nice. That and a 5 spot will get you a Starbucks.


Your point?

Mine is that one shouldn't be rewarded with lifetime support merely because of your gender. 

If she wants to play she ought to go support herself. It's not 1950.

Why should I be on the hook for it?

It's not right.

Send me the five spot, I need some caffeine.


----------



## Mom6547

Deejo said:


> Congratulations on turning the corner of your marriage. I like success stories. I really do. You used a few operative terms. 'Lucky' being the most prominent. Quite simply both you and your husband were willing to make changes and concessions to serve the marriage. Neither of you viewed those changes as too demanding or constraining.


That may very well be the case. Luck is part of the operation.

But when I come to these boards I see me before I got handed an unpleasant message. I see people complaining about THE OTHER SPOUSE. I see people making demands of THE OTHER SPOUSE. THEY need to do more housework. THEY need to put out more. I have TOLD them so many times, but s/he doesn't listen. Then they defend themselves and their rightness with a bunch of gender nonsense.

Very few people think of solving their own individual problems by seeking to better meet the needs of THE OTHER SPOUSE. Very few people accept the reality that the only control you have is over yourself. 

The overarching advice you get is to talk, talk, talk. That is loverly but if you are saying I want, I want, I want, then you are going to get nowhere. If you want more sex and you walk up to your wife and say I want more sex, what do you think she is going to say to you if you have not been listening to her pleas for more words of affirmation or conversation? You may not see that she NEEDS words of affirmation because they are not important to you. Physical touch is. She may not SEE your need for physical touch (oh god all he thinks of me for is sex...) 

Very often, if a person can be one half of figuring some of this stuff out, they can make small, incremental changes both in terms of meeting emotional needs, depositing in the love bank, while simultaneously setting non-destructive, effective limits.

Most people don't get married in order to be a selfish a-hole. I will bet for the vast majority of people on this board who have failed marriage, who think THEY did it all and their spouse just wouldn't change. I bet if we spoke to their spouses, that they would say the same thing.

When I say I am lucky, I don't mean a happy marriage fell from the sky. Many people agree that marriage is hard work. But you can work hard, if you don't work smart, you are going to lose. I was lucky to find people who could give me good advice about changing ME and stop *****ing about HIM and all the things HE did wrong, all the things HE wasn't willing to change.

I think it is utterly useless to worry about should, ought, owe. Those are all THEM words that are happy ways to avoid looking at ME. The worst part is, if you look at life that way, you have lost the best tool you have for crafting the best marriage (job, baseball team, hobby...) in the world. YOU and your creative problem solving abilities, your ability to learn and grow.

I do know how to do it wrong. We spent almost a decade there. If I took the advice I see here, I would still be talking. I would still be telling him I need help with the homework and how I felt used to be earning and doing all the work. I would, in effect, still be nagging him. I would be withdrawing from the love bank with every nag. And with every nag, I would be begrudging him every free day in the wood shop. I would be prickling at every hug, let alone sexual advance.

You think I don't know what I am talking about. That is your right. I railed against the people who tried to tell me the exact same thing. I was RIGHT. Why couldn't SEE that. I decided that being right wasn't important to me. Being happy was. And if being happy meant learning about emotional needs, love banks and letting him be him instead of some vision I made in my head of MAN, then great I can do that.




> Had you, or he, had an expectation or boundary that the other could not agree to, or continued to violate, then you are in the other 50% club.


We had loads of these. Loads. Trust me. Loads. You are fundamentally misunderstanding me. (Willfully so you can continue to not look at yourself at all?) We did not come to this place from sweetness and light. I see us of old in 5/6th of the posts on this board.



> I'm not going to argue over what works for you. I fail to see why you choose to argue over what works for somebody else,


I have not seen a lot of what works for someone else. I have not seen ONE post from you on what works for you in your marriage. As I recall, you are divorced. One can understand if you are bitter about that terrible fact. But don't be a door mat is not what I would call comprehensive marriage help. 



> or to acknowledge that what some of the men here are exploring is that concept that you have illustrated. The notion that "I can only change myself." Yet, because you don't like the turf upon which they are basing the change, you say "Why try to become someone that you aren't?" If who they are is a doormat that invariably ends up being taken advantage of and feels frustration - why is it 'sexist' if they want to become better men? Your contributions are fundamentally contradictory.


There is nothing sexist about becoming better anything. Some of you all have weird notions of what it means to be a man.


I am sorry you don't understand me. I suppose I can keep trying. You are seeing trees. I am looking at a forest. Most people who think their issues are

- sex
- housework
- porn
- money

Have *completely* different issues that they are completely unaware of. And this is only muddled further with gender stereotyping.

I have never even insinuated, let alone stated, that anyone should be a doormat.


----------



## Deejo

Impasse. I wish you well.


----------



## Mom6547

You as well.


----------



## turnera

vt, what you're describing is what His Needs Her Needs details.


----------



## michzz

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Have *completely* different issues that they are completely unaware of. And this is only muddled further with gender stereotyping.
> 
> I have never even insinuated, let alone stated, that anyone should be a doormat.


My issues are with character, honesty, doing what you say, and not harming your spouse with deception, exposure to STDs, theft of time and resources by the selfishness of cheating.

And long after the actual cheating, continuing with that way of being.

In my case, it was not a matter of being a doormat or gender sterotyping.

I was deceived for an extended period of time. In addition, I will be on the hook for spousal support for life because my cheating wife and I live in an area where there is no penalty for it and a presumption of her needing support despite treating her marriage like a dirty rag.


----------



## Scannerguard

A pure girl should not walk away from a prenuptial agreement if it's presented in the right way.

First of all, no matter what, all that the partnership builds together after the date of marriage is 50/50, and no pre-nup can supercede that. If a pre-nup did, it would certainly be challenged in court.

And yes, that means if the man goes to work as a famous cardiothoracic surgeon and she's a stay-at-home mom.

As far as debts and assets prior to the marriage, another sticky subject.

There is a "Grace Period" where all assets and debts do not "transmutate" (I think that's the legal term). To keep using the cardiothoracic surgeon example, his wife was a nurse who got him through medical school. 6 months after they wed and he lands a cushy job, they divorce.

Is she on the hook for the $200,000 in student loans (half?).

No, sayeth any reasonable court. But he may be on the hook for "restitution alimony" (I think that's the term - a one time payout for the trouble he has caused her and the support she gave). But she's a nurse, and earn a living and he's a doctor, spousal support shouldn't be on the table in the form of a monthly payout.

Now. . .after a time, let's say 10 years, perhaps as a couple they are doing well, but they make a choice together to go on Disney trips, buy a $500,000 house and then forego paying down the student loans.

At the time of divorce 10 years later, let's say he still owes $100,000 in loans?

Has the debt "transmutated?"

It probably is half hers at that point (much to her chagrin but remember, she will also be entitled to spousal support).

I am going through this myself through my divorce.

Her family contributed $75,000 15 years ago to our marriage for our first house. My family contributed $30,000. So, she is argueing she deserves a $45,000 credit on the home equity. The mediator opined that while she shoud get some of the 45K back, some of the money has simply transmutated after 15 years.

The whole "fault" thing is controversial too. . .was the one spounse being neglected? I am not sure how I feel about that.

I do agree with the trend in alimony going by the wayside though. You may be on the hook for alimony but it shouldn't be "lifetime" unless there is a really big education/earning discrepancy. I would negotiate a one time alimony payout to let her go back to school and bring her education up to snuff.

Anyway, remember, 90% of a Pre-Nup is how the couple plans to build wealth together, not how assets and debts are split in the unfortunate event of divorce.

If a girl is "too pure" to talk about such things, I would advise my sons to let her go post on the General Forum that she is looking for a 50-60 year old White Male because she thinks they are nice


----------



## Scannerguard

Michzz,

To continue this discussion. . .you have to realize and i am not sure how CA is ) - if you can't negotiate a settlement, it's going to be all about the kids.

Let's say you make 100k/year as a techie in CA and she makes 20K as a part-time secretary.

Her attorney would argue. . .

"Your honor, is it right that the kids, who spend half the time with my client, Bambi, here, have to live in *virtual squalor * for 4 days and then live in luxury the other 3 days with Michzz?"

Thus, the need for "spousal support".

A judge imagining kids going back and forth from house to a Section 8 apartment is going to have a hard time NOT taking into account the kids in the situation.

You may have perfectly well reasoned moral arguments about cheating and such. . .the courts are very child-pragmatic though in their rulings.

I noticed a recent ruling of a carpenter making 95K/year and a SAHM - she got $2000/month alimony + $500/week child support. The alimony was for 9 years though, which was about the time when her kids reach the age of majority.

The point is, you may not be on the hook for lifetime support, unless you are a really, really rich Donald Trump dude.

If that's the case, you are getting a bill for this post for $595.


----------



## Mom6547

michzz said:


> Your point?
> 
> Mine is that one shouldn't be rewarded with lifetime support merely because of your gender.
> 
> If she wants to play she ought to go support herself. It's not 1950.


I agree with you 150%. I was speaking to the dissolution of the marriage and responsibility for that. People can and should support themselves. The one exception that I see is a spouse who stayed home, usually for the sake of children, should be supported for some small amount period to re-enter the job market.


----------



## Mom6547

turnera said:


> vt, what you're describing is what His Needs Her Needs details.


I know. Dumb name since even within it it indicates that one ought look to your partners needs since while some commonaity exists within a gender, the identification of the partern's specific needs is more important that the needs of a typical "man" or "woman.:


----------



## turnera

That's why the author suggests that the two people fill out the Love Buster and Emotional Needs questionnaires from his website so the two can really get down to the nuts and bolts of how they interact with each other, and how to make each other happy.


----------



## michzz

Scannerguard said:


> Michzz,
> 
> To continue this discussion. . .you have to realize and i am not sure how CA is ) - if you can't negotiate a settlement, it's going to be all about the kids.
> 
> Let's say you make 100k/year as a techie in CA and she makes 20K as a part-time secretary.
> 
> Her attorney would argue. . .
> 
> "Your honor, is it right that the kids, who spend half the time with my client, Bambi, here, have to live in *virtual squalor * for 4 days and then live in luxury the other 3 days with Michzz?"
> 
> Thus, the need for "spousal support".
> 
> A judge imagining kids going back and forth from house to a Section 8 apartment is going to have a hard time NOT taking into account the kids in the situation.
> 
> You may have perfectly well reasoned moral arguments about cheating and such. . .the courts are very child-pragmatic though in their rulings.
> 
> I noticed a recent ruling of a carpenter making 95K/year and a SAHM - she got $2000/month alimony + $500/week child support. The alimony was for 9 years though, which was about the time when her kids reach the age of majority.
> 
> The point is, you may not be on the hook for lifetime support, unless you are a really, really rich Donald Trump dude.
> 
> If that's the case, you are getting a bill for this post for $595.


You are confusing child support and spousal support.

Even given generous child support in California, that is timeboxed by the age of majority and the end of college payments.

Spousal support is not timeboxed once a marriage is more than 10 years old.

I checked with a lawyer. It isn't even limited by the end of a career with retirement age.

My "best" alternatives are to get her to move to a less generous state or to stop working then file.

It's totally unfair to the faithful husband of a cheating wife who makes less money. 

I agree with your point of some kind of staged support for a limited time while she gets her act together to support herself.

But the state does not.

It's a nightmare and a vestige of an earlier age.


----------



## Mom6547

turnera said:


> That's why the author suggests that the two people fill out the Love Buster and Emotional Needs questionnaires from his website so the two can really get down to the nuts and bolts of how they interact with each other, and how to make each other happy.


Precisely.


----------



## Scannerguard

Michzz,

I am not confused about spousal support and child support. I only cited the example that spousal support + child support in this one example was tied together @ the hip.

Without knowing your specifics, I am not sure whether you would be on the hook for lifetime alimony. I do know that the trend for lifetime alimony has been trending downward with regards to the courts, that they don't see women as helpless as children with supporting themselves.

You'll find your best friend in your divorce will not be your attorney. In many ways, the outcome of your divorce is predetermined as you said by state guidelines and your own personal circumstances.

Your best friend is a good accountant in divorce.

That being said, I do find it frustrating that many men think if they are making $120,000/year and their wife is a SAHM with 3 kids that they think somehow the courts won't grant any consideration to their spouse with regards to standard of living, that she should just go out and get a job as a "check-out girl" and live in Section 8 housing with their kids.

You need to get out of the victimization mindset and start seeing this for what it is - a simple business transaction where everything is negotiable. If the idea of paying her a monthly check is that distasteful to you, offer her the house.

Dangle that juicy carrot out there for a woman. Women are very sentimental about houses/homes and she may bite. In the meantime, find a good accountant.


----------



## michzz

Scannerguard said:


> Michzz,
> 
> I am not confused about spousal support and child support. I only cited the example that spousal support + child support in this one example was tied together @ the hip.
> 
> Without knowing your specifics, I am not sure whether you would be on the hook for lifetime alimony. I do know that the trend for lifetime alimony has been trending downward with regards to the courts, that they don't see women as helpless as children with supporting themselves.
> 
> You'll find your best friend in your divorce will not be your attorney. In many ways, the outcome of your divorce is predetermined as you said by state guidelines and your own personal circumstances.
> 
> Your best friend is a good accountant in divorce.
> 
> That being said, I do find it frustrating that many men think if they are making $120,000/year and their wife is a SAHM with 3 kids that they think somehow the courts won't grant any consideration to their spouse with regards to standard of living, that she should just go out and get a job as a "check-out girl" and live in Section 8 housing with their kids.
> 
> You need to get out of the victimization mindset and start seeing this for what it is - a simple business transaction where everything is negotiable. If the idea of paying her a monthly check is that distasteful to you, offer her the house.
> 
> Dangle that juicy carrot out there for a woman. Women are very sentimental about houses/homes and she may bite. In the meantime, find a good accountant.



I get the frustration about poverty vs. wealth in regards to small children.

The situation is not good.

But from my perspective, I've wasted literally millions of dollars supporting an unfaithful wife, especially after she made me think her cheating was a one-time thing. We bought a house, went to Hawaii twice, I put her through finalizing her BA, paid for realty training, a physical therapist training, bought her nice cars, and so on.

I poured myself into the career, making sure the kids were reared properly, had fun things to do, learned right from wrong.

These were things done because she said it made her happy. Not to buy her affection.

All the whole time she was in deep cover with her affair.

I just wish there were a price tag for the theft of time it represents. And I definitely think she should not be rewarded for this.


----------



## Scannerguard

Well, here's the thing. . .I am not an attorney and you should definitely talk to one, if you already don't have one.

A. Find one who does family law. A lot of attorneys do everything - PI, divorce, wills, anything they can make a buck on. You need one who knows case law and has studied the subject of family law in your state

B. If she is trained as a physical therapist and has a BA (and a realty license), there comes a point after the kids are done being raised that she should have to contribute to her own support. 

I know California is a liberal state though (as is NJ) and I know what you are worried about is true - female bias in family court. Poor, poor wife, who can't support herself and mean ol' Michzz, who obviously neglected his wife sexually.

It's real. I would say it's so real, do what you can to stay out of court as a judge could see it that way and feel sorry for the female.

That being said, a good attorney should be able to argue the fact that she does have a PT degree, a realty license and should be able to "prop up" her lifestyle at least somewhat, at least after the kids are raised.

Again, I am not sure what kind of discrepancy in income we are talking about but a PT in CA should make around 70-80K + benefits. If you were making 200K/year. . .okay, well, a little in alimony for a little while should have to be paid out but it shouldn't be like she is some helpless check-out girl who you are abandoning.

Remember - simple business transaction.

She is a subtraction to your life and you need to get her "off the books" (divorce her).

A good attorney should be able to argue she has skills to contribute to her own upkeep.

Now, that being said, here's where it gets complicated. Let's say she gets a job as a PT making 80K/year. . .well, if you have kids, you'll still have to pay daycare and split that cost with her.

It may be better to agree to alimony for the kids sake anyway and she can be home with the kids and raise them.

This is why I used the example above of where I know the man paid $2000/month in alimony + $500/month in child support. Okay, that's gotta hurt. . .but she was working full time as a daycare worker and the alimony is only for 9 years (only, I know, easy for me to say) and she was to put it to use for getting more education (which she is going to nursing school).

I would make offers along these lines. . .try to make offers that "Get her up to snuff". . .as you cut the big subtraction in your life loose.

Perhaps offer to pay for 3/4's of the kids college after they last one turns 18 and she supports herself.


----------



## Catherine602

Scannerguard said:


> A pure girl should not walk away from a prenuptial agreement if it's presented in the right way.
> 
> First of all, no matter what, all that the partnership builds together after the date of marriage is 50/50, and no pre-nup can supercede that. If a pre-nup did, it would certainly be challenged in court.
> 
> And yes, that means if the man goes to work as a famous cardiothoracic surgeon and she's a stay-at-home mom.
> 
> As far as debts and assets prior to the marriage, another sticky subject.
> 
> There is a "Grace Period" where all assets and debts do not "transmutate" (I think that's the legal term). To keep using the cardiothoracic surgeon example, his wife was a nurse who got him through medical school. 6 months after they wed and he lands a cushy job, they divorce.
> 
> Is she on the hook for the $200,000 in student loans (half?).
> 
> No, sayeth any reasonable court. But he may be on the hook for "restitution alimony" (I think that's the term - a one time payout for the trouble he has caused her and the support she gave). But she's a nurse, and earn a living and he's a doctor, spousal support shouldn't be on the table in the form of a monthly payout.
> 
> Now. . .after a time, let's say 10 years, perhaps as a couple they are doing well, but they make a choice together to go on Disney trips, buy a $500,000 house and then forego paying down the student loans.
> 
> At the time of divorce 10 years later, let's say he still owes $100,000 in loans?
> 
> Has the debt "transmutated?"
> 
> It probably is half hers at that point (much to her chagrin but remember, she will also be entitled to spousal support).
> 
> I am going through this myself through my divorce.
> 
> Her family contributed $75,000 15 years ago to our marriage for our first house. My family contributed $30,000. So, she is argueing she deserves a $45,000 credit on the home equity. The mediator opined that while she shoud get some of the 45K back, some of the money has simply transmutated after 15 years.
> 
> The whole "fault" thing is controversial too. . .was the one spounse being neglected? I am not sure how I feel about that.
> 
> I do agree with the trend in alimony going by the wayside though. You may be on the hook for alimony but it shouldn't be "lifetime" unless there is a really big education/earning discrepancy. I would negotiate a one time alimony payout to let her go back to school and bring her education up to snuff.
> 
> Anyway, remember, 90% of a Pre-Nup is how the couple plans to build wealth together, not how assets and debts are split in the unfortunate event of divorce.
> 
> If a girl is "too pure" to talk about such things, I would advise my sons to let her go post on the General Forum that she is looking for a 50-60 year old White Male because she thinks they are nice


Good girls are in demand and therefore, they have no reason to consider a man who is so insecure that he would present a financial deal in the anticipation of a break-up. Prenups are for old men with money who marry young girls in an attempt to stave off their waining manhood. He knows she is not marrying him for love so she will negotiate a fee to get the money and put up with the old geezer for a few yrs. 

Prenups are not a young man's thing, it's something that only bitter older men try to persuade their sons to get. I think the older men have nothing to tell their sons for a number of reasons. First, there is a big difference in the societal influences on young men and women of today than when these men were coming of age. 

Secondly, these sons have a mother and recognize the role of both parents in the troubled relationship between their parents. The men with all of the advice obviously see women as evil and are trying to warn their son's. But their mother is a woman and they have young women that they love or like who are women. They may listen politely but they know the old man is blowing steam

Thirdly, no one can take away the optimism of youth. If all young men were influenced by bitter and fearful older men, there would be no progress towards improved relationships between men and woman. 

A failed relationship takes two but, strangely enough, the men with all of the advice fail to see their part. Their sons do, they love the other half of the relationship, their mother and if they have sisters they love them too. But their sons see the other side they have a mother. So your efforts to warn your son's about the evils of women are futile as they should be. 

In fact, I think that a young man seeing the failure of their parents creates in them a desire to form a better alliance with women and not according to the out of date, self-serving advice of a father who has been unsuccessful. 

Why should the older steal the future from the young, you cannot make them behave in a way to avoid your problems. It is the essence of youth to be fearless, and it leads to progress. 

What you should be doing is to pray that your sons do better than you and leave it up to them the find the way to do just that.


----------



## Trenton

A pure girl...laugh out freaking loud!


----------



## Mom6547

Go, Catherine!


----------



## Catherine602

Scannerguard said:


> Michzz,
> 
> I am not confused about spousal support and child support. I only cited the example that spousal support + child support in this one example was tied together @ the hip.
> 
> Without knowing your specifics, I am not sure whether you would be on the hook for lifetime alimony. I do know that the trend for lifetime alimony has been trending downward with regards to the courts, that they don't see women as helpless as children with supporting themselves.
> 
> You'll find your best friend in your divorce will not be your attorney. In many ways, the outcome of your divorce is predetermined as you said by state guidelines and your own personal circumstances.
> 
> Your best friend is a good accountant in divorce.
> 
> That being said, I do find it frustrating that many men think if they are making $120,000/year and their wife is a SAHM with 3 kids that they think somehow the courts won't grant any consideration to their spouse with regards to standard of living, that she should just go out and get a job as a "check-out girl" and live in Section 8 housing with their kids.
> 
> You need to get out of the victimization mindset and start seeing this for what it is - a simple business transaction where everything is negotiable. If the idea of paying her a monthly check is that distasteful to you, offer her the house.
> 
> Dangle that juicy carrot out there for a woman. Women are very sentimental about houses/homes and she may bite. In the meantime, find a good accountant.


One missing aspect to the talk of the working spouses obligation to the spouse caring for children and home. A SAHM is not a lady of leisure, she is a loving mother who nutures the mans children, she a house cleaner, cook, go for, grocery shopper, laundress, taxi cab driver, entertainer for husband business associates and on an on. I don't understand why men make it seem like a woman is living off him when he works outside of the home and she works inside of the home. If it were not for that SAHM, you would have to hire a nanny, cook, housekeeper, driver, and drudge to take care of everything else to take her place. 

You may be tempted to rewrite history but that woman to whom you think you owe nothing, has done allot for you over the years. She made it possible for you to be a sucess. She provided you with children, and a safe home for then, she upheld her job at home and you did the same outside the home. Moreover, they are your children and you should concentrate on their wellbeing amd not on how to punish you wife. It may help to admit your part in the breakdown, it is never one person. If you were as dismissive of her importance in your life as you post indicates maybe that is why you both failed. She should be compensated for her work, it's too bad you devalue what she did for you, maybe that is why she checked out of the marriage. Lack of apprieciation kills love, be careful not to devalue the next woman you are involved with or history will repeat itself until you learn to be greatful.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547

Catherine602 said:


> One missing aspect to the talk of the working spouses obligation to the spouse caring for children and home. A SAHM is not a lady of leisure, she is a loving mother who nutures the mans children, she a house cleaner, cook, go for, grocery shopper, laundress, taxi cab driver, entertainer for husband business associates and on an on.


Before staying home, I was a software engineer, used to keeping timesheets. I kept a time sheet for my husband for a week. Was THAT an eye opener.


> I don't understand why men make it seem like a woman is living off him when he works outside of the home and she works inside of the home.
> 
> If it were not for that SAHM, you would have to hire a nanny, cook, housekeeper, driver, and drudge to take care of everything else to take her place.


Worse. They would have to contribute to that themselves.

But in truth that is not what really winds up with 2 bread winner households. What really happens is that the kid spends 8-12 hours per day in child care of some sort. I know school aged kids who cannot play soccer, basketball, go to 4-H, boys scouts, music lessons... because they could not get there. 

The average 2 income family eats take-out several times per week and argue over who is supposed to do the laundry. Half of their work time off is spent getting kids to doc and dentist appointments.

See any value to stay-at-home parents now, folk?!?


----------



## Deejo

Catherine602 said:


> One missing aspect to the talk of the working spouses obligation to the spouse caring for children and home. A SAHM is not a lady of leisure, she is a loving mother who nutures the mans children, she a house cleaner, cook, go for, grocery shopper, laundress, taxi cab driver, entertainer for husband business associates and on an on. I don't understand why men make it seem like a woman is living off him when he works outside of the home and she works inside of the home. If it were not for that SAHM, you would have to hire a nanny, cook, housekeeper, driver, and drudge to take care of everything else to take her place.
> 
> You may be tempted to rewrite history but that woman to whom you think you owe nothing, has done allot for you over the years. She made it possible for you to be a sucess. She provided you with children, and a safe home for then, she upheld her job at home and you did the same outside the home. Moreover, they are your children and you should concentrate on their wellbeing amd not on how to punish you wife. It may help to admit your part in the breakdown, it is never one person. If you were as dismissive of her importance in your life as you post indicates maybe that is why you both failed. She should be compensated for her work, it's too bad you devalue what she did for you, maybe that is why she checked out of the marriage. Lack of apprieciation kills love, be careful not to devalue the next woman you are involved with or history will repeat itself until you learn to be greatful.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Please, please ... get over yourselves. There has been an absolute rash of this lately.

Don't project, don't assume, don't insinuate. You want to share how your marriage sucked and what your contribution to the 'suck' was? Fine. Would love to read it. Take ownership of something.

Cherry-picking these posts looking for unbridled misogyny and points to preach about means that I can't possibly take you seriously.

Making the presumption that none of the men here, whether happily married or bitterly divorced has NOT done their own self-evaluation and reflection adds nothing of value. It's grand-standing. It's pot stirring, nothing more.

Our presence here should be clue enough, that we are coping, sharing, learning and self-aware. We aren't simply interested in b!tching about women or our relationships.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo,
Thank you. That post was steering into total male bashing. As a feminist, I cannot stand woman bashing. The same is true for male bashing and I will call it out. I got very unnerved at the personal attack on BBW. I rarely agree with BBW but that is his opinion and this is an open forum. I express my opinions and don't expect to be attacked for them. BBW has always had the courtesy of not lashing out and he stays true to form and he is respectful of others who post, often listening closely and asking questions to make certain he understands. He does not deserve to be ridiculed by someone hiding behind a monitor. The post went on further to bash Michzz because he dared to question if lifetime alimony was fair in *HIS* situation. His wife cheated on him repeatedly, lied about it and then took the affair further underground yet he is supposed to be "greatful". Now if they divorce he will have to pay her alimony for life. That's a pretty sad situation and not one that needed to be mocked on a forum purporting to help people dealing with marriage problems.


----------



## Mom6547

Brennan, I don't know anything about Michzz. So this is not really about him but one question that your last post brings up

What relationship does division of assets and cheating have to do in a divorce? 

I ask this, and maybe I should start a new thread. I can understand being really PISSED if this happens to you. But I can't understand the relationship between the division of assets and the emotional pain of cheating.

See it seems to me that marriage is two things, a promise to love loosely connected with a bunch of civil rights and responsibilities. Within the civil rights and responsibilities are things like collective property ownership, tax benefits, survivorship benefits and the like. When the civil contract is dissolved these rights and responsibilities need to be severed. One of these is the division of assets. Either the division of assets is fair or it is not. But what does it have to do with the emotional pain of an unfaithful spouse?

I ask in earnest because I can see how much of a kick in the [email protected] it would be to go about the collective property ownership business in good faith and then have to dissolve. But I guess my curiosity is what are the courts to do? 

To use a ridiculous example. If I enter into a business contract with a business partner and then put all my money into it. The contract is written that ownership of assets is 50/50. Maybe I hope to use his professional contacts, his expertise or whatever. But the business partner is a tool. He squanders the assets. The business fails. Do I expect the courts to figure out whose "fault" it was? Who "cheated"? 

Maybe the problem is marriage itself? Maybe the package of rights and responsibilities does not allow for us to ENTER marriage with *specific* contractual rights and responsibilities like having the income and expense over time determine the dissolution percentages with some stipulation regarding the value that child care brings to the family? In Mitchzz's case, if I recall it, he brought in a lot which would entitle him to a lot. He also spent a lot on her behalf which would bring her ins into the negative or even out whatever she brought in.

Maybe the basic civil marriage contractual package is flawed? 

(If you think I am somehow being sarcastic, I really am not! I ask in seriousness.)


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Schoolmom,
Michzz was not talking about division of assets. Assets are divided fairly. 50% in most cases, regardless of "fault". He was talking about alimony. Marriage is a contract. You sign on the line and agree to terms. That contract breaks and each parts ways with half. 
The children have their own contract. They are to be provided for until they are 18, based on a percentage of income from the parents. 
In Michzz's case (if memory serves correctly) his wife was a SAHM. That then becomes an implied contract. The contract states that he will go out an earn the living, come home to her, be faithful and take care of her. Her contract is that she will stay home and raise the children, be faithful, take care of household needs and other aspects of life. Both contribute 50%. It works great, until one person breaks that contract. She makes a choice to go out and cheat. That contract is now over. She should have zero expectation that he should continue to provide money to HER. Again, not talking about division of assets or financial support for children. That's already determined. I am talking about ALIMONY. She broke the contract, she ended it.
Is alimony a good thing? Yes. I am not suggesting that it shouldn't be available but in Michzz's case, NO. I think alimony should be based on a case by case basis, but sadly it isn't in lots of states.
Now on to my situation: 
I met my (now) husband when I was 9. Years later after we both dated others, we fell in love. I got pregnant at the age of 21. We were both in college. I dropped out. He continued. He graduated from a top notch university. Baby was born and we had an implied agreement that I would stay home and care for baby boy while he worked during the day and pursued his MBA at night. It worked. He got a great job and his career took off. I was at home. 5 years later, baby boy 2 was born. I was still at home, his career got even better. At that point our implied agreement was that I would continue to be a SAHM until our youngest was 3. I wanted to work (besides high school/college jobs) and we both agreed to it. At the age of nearly 30, I was entering into the workforce with 2 young children and only a high school diploma. My prospects were bleak but I made the best of it. I now make $55K, while he makes six figures.
After 17 years of marriage, I am beginning to realize that this might not be forever. Communication breakdown if you will. We love each other but it is getting harder and harder to see past the crap and look towards the future. Neither one of us broke the contract, not once. We both kept our end of the bargain. He is a great guy and he would say I am a great wife. Now, I am 39. Should I be given alimony in the event of divorce? Yes. The reason? We both held our end of the implied contract. I threw a possible career away to take care of children. It was a choice, don't get me wrong. If we divorce, he would be the first person to say that "my wife deserves it". He has said it time and time again. Now do I deserve it forever? NO! I would like financial support until I finish my degree and then I am on my own. I know what I am capable of doing and and he does too.


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> Please, please ... get over yourselves. There has been an absolute rash of this lately.
> 
> Don't project, don't assume, don't insinuate. You want to share how your marriage sucked and what your contribution to the 'suck' was? Fine. Would love to read it. Take ownership of something.
> 
> Cherry-picking these posts looking for unbridled misogyny and points to preach about means that I can't possibly take you seriously.
> 
> Making the presumption that none of the men here, whether happily married or bitterly divorced has NOT done their own self-evaluation and reflection adds nothing of value. It's grand-standing. It's pot stirring, nothing more.
> 
> Our presence here should be clue enough, that we are coping, sharing, learning and self-aware. We aren't simply interested in b!tching about women or our relationships.


You're just bitter...sweet


----------



## Catherine602

Brennan said:


> Deejo,
> Thank you. That post was steering into total male bashing. As a feminist, I cannot stand woman bashing. The same is true for male bashing and I will call it out. I got very unnerved at the personal attack on BBW. I rarely agree with BBW but that is his opinion and this is an open forum. I express my opinions and don't expect to be attacked for them. BBW has always had the courtesy of not lashing out and he stays true to form and he is respectful of others who post, often listening closely and asking questions to make certain he understands. He does not deserve to be ridiculed by someone hiding behind a monitor. The post went on further to bash Michzz because he dared to question if lifetime alimony was fair in *HIS* situation. His wife cheated on him repeatedly, lied about it and then took the affair further underground yet he is supposed to be "greatful". Now if they divorce he will have to pay her alimony for life. That's a pretty sad situation and not one that needed to be mocked on a forum purporting to help people dealing with marriage problems.


Not male bashing at all, I speak in support of SAHM's. 

It is interesting that it is usually women who are quick to criticize a woman who speaks up for other women. They may be SANM's themselves but they don't support themselves. They seem to be fearful that men are too weak and fragile to take any criticism. I think it's the sad trend of woman feminizing men. You mentioned being a feminist, I'm not, just a regular woman, but I think you have not figured out real men or you would have no angst over BBW. 

Believe me, BBW, is the last man who need you to come to his defense. Men are strong enough to come to their own defense, so I am safe in being critical, they are not fragile. We women think that think like us but a man's silence is not that they are afraid to speak or that they have nothing to say. It takes men time to come up with a response, women usually come into the breach and short circuit that process, they can't wait to let things unfold. 

BBW is silent not because he has nothing to say. He most certainly does but, he is smart enough to wait for me to run down which is very male. Unlike you, BBW no doubt, recognizes it's an emotional issue for me and years of experience has thought him that it is useless to engage an emotional woman. 

You don't appear to know anything about strong men, I think. It's quite safe to get cheeky with them. It is rare for a truly strong man to be baited by a woman. They have control over themselves, that's the point. 

So don't worry about BBW, he will come roaring back on his schedule not mine. You read his post but you don't get it. The men who read his post should take note maybe they will get it. 

I recognize him because my husband is a very strong and good man. We are having problems now but I respect him and love him and we are working on it. i do challenge him though but, he takes it in stride. I have never seen him lose control and that is comforting 

I admire women who are able to sacrifice for their family and I hate to see them not getting credit for what they do. My Mom was a SAHM, and I had a great childhood because she was there always for my brothers and sister. I, on the other hand, have a successful career, a husband and kids. 

As I said, I'm not a feminist, my take on feminism is that it is a group of privileged women who advance the agenda of woman of their ilk. They don't tackle the real issues that afflict woman differentially in this society for instance, affordable quality day care for working and mothers. :soapbox:


----------



## Trenton

Catherine602 said:


> Not male bashing at all, I speak in support of SAHM's.
> 
> It is interesting that it is usually women who are quick to criticize a woman who speaks up for other women. They may be SANM's themselves but they don't support themselves. They seem to be fearful that men are too weak and fragile to take any criticism. I think it's the sad trend of woman feminizing men. You mentioned being a feminist, I'm not, just a regular woman, but I think you have not figured out real men or you would have no angst over BBW.
> 
> Believe me, BBW, is the last men to need you to come to his defense. Men are strong enough to come to their own defense, so I am safe in being critical, they are not fragile. We women think that think like us but a man's silence is not that they are afraid to speak or that they have nothing to say. It takes men time to come up with a response, women usually come into the breach and short circuit that process, they can't wait to let things unfold.
> 
> BBW is silent not because he has nothing to say. He most certainly does but, he is smart enough to wait for me to run down which is very male. Unlike you, BBW no doubt, recognizes it's an emotional issue for me and years of experience has thought him that it is useless to engage an emotional woman.
> 
> You don't appear to know anything about strong men, I think. It's quite safe to get cheeky with them. It is rare for a truly strong man to be baited by a woman. They have control over themselves, that's the point.
> 
> So don't worry about BBW, he will come roaring back on his schedule not mine. You read his post but you don't get it. The men who read his post should take note maybe they will get it.
> 
> I recognize him because my husband is a very strong and good man. We are having problems now but I respect him and love him and we are working on it. i do challenge him though but, he takes it in stride. I have never seen him lose control and that is comforting
> 
> I admire women who are able to sacrifice for their family and I hate to see them not getting credit for what they do. My Mom was a SAHM, and I had a great childhood because she was there always for my brothers and sister. I, on the other hand, have a successful career, a husband and kids.
> 
> As I said, I'm not a feminist, my take on feminism is that it is a group of privileged women who advance the agenda of woman of their ilk. They don't tackle the real issues that afflict woman differentially in this society for instance, affordable quality day care for working and mothers. :soapbox:


I appreciate your stance but in this particular thread don't you see the woman cheating having some effect on her ability to claim alimony? Child support yes but alimony? I think if a woman cheats or the man cheats that they give up certain rights in the relationship because they broke the contract. She very well could have divorced him before cheating on him and then she would have retained all her rights. It's possible he is a horrible husband or a mediocre husband or that she has moved on and he is no longer the one she wants but regardless I do believe that the marriage vows should be honored by both or the benefits should change.


----------



## Trenton

...and I'll add that affordable daycare should be available for children's sake rather than specifically the woman's sake. One year off with pay for either parent to care for an infant is also in the best interest of the child. 

Feminism is thrown around as much as this dominant/submissive argument is thrown around. It ends up leaving a bitter taste in my mouth. Let's look at countries known for their stellar rights for women such as Sweden. We can all learn lessons from countries like these and hopefully learn the opposite lesson from countries that repress women such as many African, Middle Eastern and Asian communities.

Equality should always be about equal respect not equal expectations as there is no doubt the sexes are different but bound to work together for the sake of our future and our attraction to one another.


----------



## Catherine602

Cheating is a horrible deception and the sign of a selfish person who put their need for pleasure and variety etc. above the needs of innocent children and a trusting spouse. They deserve to be jettisoned. 

But the cheater cannot be punished by with holding what is due them, unfortunately. For instance do you think a cheating man should be forced to part with 3/4 of his fortune in a divorce as punishment for his indiscretion? I don't think so, it would be like putting a person into debtors prison. It's not the American way. We as a society, are loath to harshly punish non-criminal mistakes. I think we recognize that we all make mistakes, some more egregious and hurtful than others. But these deeds have their own rewards. This woman will feel the weight of her selfishness. 

The cheaters reward is regret at what they squandered, the precious gift of a stable family, happy kids and a spouse they never gave a chance to make things right. 2nd marriages have a higher failure rate than first and thirds even worst so they feel the error of their deeds but it takes a while. They never tell anyone that they know they made a big mistake.


----------



## Trenton

Catherine602 said:


> Cheating is a horrible deception and the sign of a selfish person who put their need for pleasure and variety etc. above the needs of innocent children and a trusting spouse. They deserve to be jettisoned.
> 
> But the cheater cannot be punished by with holding what is due them, unfortunately. For instance do you think a cheating man should be forced to part with 3/4 of his fortune in a divorce as punishment for his indiscretion? I don't think so, it would be like putting a person into debtors prison. It's not the American way. We as a society are reluctant to punish harshly for non-criminal mistakes. I think we recognize that we all make mistakes, some more egregious and hurtful than others. But these deeds have their own reward. This woman will feel the weight of her selfishness.
> 
> Cheaters are rewarded regret at what they squandered, the precious gift of a stable family, happy kids and a spouse they never gave a chance to make things right. 2nd marriages have a higher failure rate than first and thirds even worst so they feel the error of their deeds but it takes a while. They never tell anyone that they know they made a big mistake.


Then why bother with a legal marriage certificate anyway? If I drunk drive I lose the privilege of my license. A marriage certificate comes with legal privileges as well. Perhaps we should look at it more for what it is for both parties involved and therein lies the mistake.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton,
Exactly! That is my point. The marital assets have already been divided, childrens rights have already been determined. Why should the cheater benefit from lifetime alimony when she was the person who broke that contract?
I too will stand up for SAHM's as I was one for many years. Catherine is absolutely correct in that so many of us are/were the backbone of our husbands being the success that they are. We enabled them to go out and storm the castle while we stayed behind stockpiling the ammunition. I am not suggesting in any way that a SAHM should not be given alimony. I even posted my situation and my thoughts on alimony. I was talking about somebody who broke the marital contract through infidelity, lies and deception. Not to mention 2 STD's. I don't think that she should be entitled to any future compensation and certainly not LIFETIME alimony. Like you said, if you drive drunk you loose your license, the right to drive. You break your marriage contract, you should loose your right to continued financial support.


----------



## Scannerguard

Well, that's true - no use argueing with an emotional woman like Catherine if that's what she is saying and she is admitting she has emotional issues with this.

I suppose she is right though in that pre-nups are for "old men who want young women" and are being protective. (at least that's the trend with one gender - young men don't do prenups)

Actually, I have made the point (over and over, to no avail I suppose) that 90% of a pre-nup is about a plan about how finances, child-rearing and other aspects are going to be handled, not about what happens to assets/income in the event of an unfortunate split. It's about seperate checking, house and mortgage names, life insurance, etc.

I know it's not Swinger Parties to the forum and therefore it won't get a lot of interest over on the Sex Forum but I think these discussions are important.

If my sons said it actually kept the peace for the young "pure girl" that they would throw out the 10% of the pre-nup that determines where assets and income are going, I would still say go for at least some amount of understanding and fluid agreement about how finances and childrearing will be handled in 1, 5, and 10+ years.

To me, something is better than nothing.

It seems women get all emotional about that 10% of a prenup.

I am not sure why.

Does that old joke with women still kind of ring true? That a marriage is a kind of insurance policy, that if doesn't work out, there's always alimony? Does a prenup challenge that joke and invalidate the insurance policy? I am not sure.

Because really, I am not getting "screwed" in my divorce. I don't really have that situation that mchzz is in other than perhaps a parenting plan dispute. I may be getting 40% of the house and she gets 60% but I think that is fair (unless she pushes the subject). In fact, I may be entitled to a little alimony (but would rather just drop the claim in the interest of settling).

So to me, this isn't about preventing another loss I had (because I haven't had one and it doesn't look like I will have one) - to me - it would actually be kind of an exciting, positive thing - developing a prenuptial - it's about developing a plan for your life and future together - developing a vision that is written down. Like goals, I think things need to written or else women tend to think men will feel the vibes of the universe and all the gushy things they think they feel.

Right women? 

I am not sure why women are so emotional about it.

I mean, I could make the opposite emotional argument (but I am really not, I'd rather gently persuade):

Women who don't want prenups are young women who are out to maximize their golddigging tendencies silently imparted by their mothers, grandmothers and aunts.

But I think that's as negative and judgmental as saying prenups are for bitter old men.

Could it perhaps be that young men and young women don't know how to plan for the future and have not yet developed the skills to foster understanding and compromises and contigencies and that maybe us old men and bitter old women, angry at men, could help the youngen's? And a prenup may foster that, even if 60% of it was left blank before the nuptials?

Or maybe things are working well as they are.

50% divorce rate and the Church's moaning it with their holy thumbs up their butts. Government whining too.


----------



## BigBadWolf

Okay, so looks like much is going on in this thread lately. 

First things first:

The "personal attacks" or such things, as far as I am concerned, it is a non issue, as I value honesty FAR above politeness.

As well, I value criticism as much or more as any support or agreement, for in criticism it is the opportunity to defend what is truth, and the opportunity to correct what is not truth, in this way we can all benefit from one another.

And, yes, if it is sharp criticism from an "emotional woman", that is more than fine, as my wife is well aware, I am nothing but awe in the beauty and tempest of a woman very passionate and full of emotion, like experiencing a brilliant storm on the ocean! 



Concerning prenuptuals, the scenario that Michzz is presenting is exactly what I am concerned about exploring for my own sons. 

In this day and age, for marriage wrecked by a cheating woman, handing the cheating woman a blank checkbook and reward, this does not settle well with me.

Likewise for the man, but a cheating man, as far as I know, his wife will have the support of the courts and law in this day and time.

As well, if a woman gets "bored", or wants out of the marriage for it is simply this easy in "no fault" divorce correct? In this way still, should her husband be assumed to support her?

So, in a prenuptual, I am wondering if is it possible to outline consequences for infidelity or otherwise ending the marriage?

In no way would I assume a prenuptual is designed to keep the man from meeting his obligations to his wife, but instead should it not really be protecting both of them from abuse from one another in the unforeseen future?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Contrary to what was said, I was not standing up per se for BBW. What I was doing, in essence, was sending a warning shot that personal attacks are not welcome. This is a forum for people who are having issues in their life. I don't like attacks and I would not like to see a new person lurking and seeing such, being fearful of posting because of it. Apparently stating such, left me open to personal attacks from Catherine suggesting that I do not know "real" men. After 17 years of marriage, I am pretty sure I do.


----------



## michzz

There's been a lot o presumed about the economics and stay at home status of my wife during the course of our marriage. 

My wife used to work and even became a realtor for a stretch that really worked out to be an expensive hobby. One sale in the last five years of it.

Now she thinks she is a healer and wants to be an energy healer. It would be funny if it wasn't my life.

I got laid off this year and am living off savings. I heard recently that this may be in my favor if I want to pull the plug while unemployed.

I have to qualms about dividing assets equitably. Just have major heartburn that there is a presumption that my wife should get alimony for life when she is the one who destroyed our marriage. Not a one nighter mind you. wrap your head around 8 years of cheating and another 8 continuing to hide it.

It's a nightmare.

I figure I should be spared having to pay her after we divide things. She can earn her own way in life as easily as I can.


----------



## Scannerguard

Michzz,

You really need to talk to an attorney because there is a lot implied here (I think by you, but perhaps I inferred it from your writings).

I was under the impression you were "raking it in" and your wife a SAHM, or yes, some flake jumping around from career to career.

What can I say? You live in California so your wife proclaiming to be an energy healer ain't that far off the charts as well as her being blonde, I imagine. I'm on the opposite coast and we, in NJ, let's say scratch our heads at your culture out there.

Again, talk to an attorney but if you can make a good case you are unemployed through no fault of your own (that you didn't just get "divorcitis" and stop working, like a lot of men do), well, believe it or not, the courts take that into account (at least in NJ). You can't be on the hook for lifetime alimony if you ain't got a job.

If you are thinking of ending this subtraction in your life, now may be the time, michzz.

Yeah, if her and her slimey attorney want to put up a fight, they could do an income imputation on you. . .with that, they hire an expensive "Wage Analyst" to do an analysis on you and what you should be making but gee. . .you know. . .it's the George Bush Recession here. Even that's kind of hard to determine - what "should" you be making?

They would take your education, degree, licensure, past earnings, and future outlook for your industry and come up with a "number." But that's a futuristic prediction. There is still the problem of the "here and now." Okay, as a Microsoft Techie in CA, you should be making $65,000/year + benefits on average but right now you aren't.

I think you have some leverage. . . instead of her trying to get lifetime alimony on an unemployed ex-husband, offer her a one time lump sum of $15,000 or whatever is reasonable for you circumstances (put a time limit on the offer) so she can go take some energy healing courses and get her chakkra's up to snuff. Then let her flit away. A good attorney would tell her she's a fool to not take it IMO. However, if she does get a bad attorney, he/she may say,

"No, let's fight this. I can get blood from a stone." (and some attorneys really beleive they can change the law and will of course, try to fuel her fire)

To me, it's either take a lump sum or come after you with an expensive wage analyst who's going to have a hard time saying, "Gee, you should be employed and making this in this day and age." Even judges know you can't get blood from a stone and really, they would probably be more liberal with child support in income imputation, but more conservative with alimony in income imputation.

I think you (and the rest of us) are working off of some suppositions that only a legal consult can clear up.

Good luck.

BBW,

I agree with the jist of your last post but you see. . .this is why I am not too concerned iwth the section of the pre-nup that deals with asset splitting/spousal support. 

It sounds ominous but I don't think it's as ominous as we first assumed and it wouldn't be for our sons.

But yeah. . .if you want to make a "fault" divorce, perhaps a pre-nup can supercede state law - interesting question, I think.

Could a couple say the other partner forfeits all claims of spousal support in the event of infidelty and that be binding and pre-empt a "No-fault law" state? I'm not sure.

I would guess a private agreement between 2 consenting parties would. . .but that's just a guess.

Anyway, just stuff for old men, I guess. . .hey, I'll admit, at the ripe ol age of 42, the smell of young, sweet and succulent you know what doesn't make me as batty as it used to. I'll admit it, LOL. No offense taken. . . 

That's why I'm the father and my sons are their Dad's sons. I"m sure at age 22-35, they'll be driven batty by it as I was so that's why I stand by my rec. of a prenup, even if they don't have a "split clause."


----------



## Catherine602

Brennan said:


> Contrary to what was said, I was not standing up per se for BBW. What I was doing, in essence, was sending a warning shot that personal attacks are not welcome. This is a forum for people who are having issues in their life. I don't like attacks and I would not like to see a new person lurking and seeing such, being fearful of posting because of it. Apparently stating such, left me open to personal attacks from Catherine suggesting that I do not know "real" men. After 17 years of marriage, I am pretty sure I do.


You are right, of course I don't want to scare away people who are looking for assistance but reluctant to do so because of fear of undo criticism. However, I have seen more than once scathing criticism and pilling on of some poor poster whose problems lacked political correctness. So the environment is not uniformly supportive. I hope you take aim with your shots in that direction as well. 

I am not sure what you mean by a warning shot and unwelcome. Do you mean if someone says something that makes you upset that they will be in essence shot, I guess suppressed or thrown off the board? I think the interactions here are reasonably robust so that making strong statement will incite discussion but not war. My reference to you not knowing much about men was said with tongue in cheek. 

The strong statements I made comes out of real concerns on my part. I see in this society that SAHM get very little respect especially when it comes to divorce. I have read more than once here and on other forums, that notion expressed that SAHM are being supported by their husbands with the underlying message being that she is getting a free ride. 

I have read many times men expressing the feeling that they are entitled to sexual favors especially since they are the wage earner and supporting the family. I don't dispute his feeling about needing more sex, I dispute the reason he feels so. Being the sole wage earner is extremely stressful and I think the 
man or sometimes woman who takes on this responsibility should have their contribution to the family recognized and respected. But I think the same recognition and respect needs to be afforded the SAHM. Both contribute to the whole in different ways but equally. 

I rarely see anyone coming to the defense of these women and that to me is shows that society places little value on the work these women do in the home. In addition, I think that maybe the woman who make this sacrifice devalue what they do as well. 

This is the way I see it - a SAHM cannot be retroactively punished. If she has been steadfast for X number of years, then wants out, she should not forfeit the compensation for what she has already earned. She has already done the job, the children and intact household are proof of that. 

Welcome back BBW,  glad you'er not upset by what I said. Your reaction is exactly like my husbands! It may provoke discussion and some of my "issues" have been lifted due to the feedback that I have gotten from posters on other forums. I hope I don't wear out my welcome so soon after joining this forum.


----------



## Catherine602

BTW. I thought most states did away with the archaic practice of lifetime alimony. I know several divorced woman who had a year or two of support with the stipulation that they need to get training for a job or find work in their profession. Lifetime support is unfair, it's like a man never being able to pay off the debt to his ex. Her role was vital but getting married and divorced should not bring the man a lifelong financial obligation. That can be construed as a punishment for a man having faith in the marriage.


----------



## michzz

Scannerguard said:


> Michzz,
> 
> You really need to talk to an attorney because there is a lot implied here (I think by you, but perhaps I inferred it from your writings).


I've spoken to two different attorneys.

BTW, Catherine, California has not gotten rid of what I agree is an archaic marital privilege--spousal support with no time limit.


----------



## BigBadWolf

Scannerguard said:


> BBW,
> 
> I agree with the jist of your last post but you see. . .this is why I am not too concerned iwth the section of the pre-nup that deals with asset splitting/spousal support.
> 
> It sounds ominous but I don't think it's as ominous as we first assumed and it wouldn't be for our sons.


I generally believe this, but then I read Michzz and others similar, and it makes me cringe.



> But yeah. . .if you want to make a "fault" divorce, perhaps a pre-nup can supercede state law - interesting question, I think.


I would assume it would supercede state law, much like a will or really most any legal or business contract.

Empasis on "assume" however.



> Could a couple say the other partner forfeits all claims of spousal support in the event of infidelty and that be binding and pre-empt a "No-fault law" state? I'm not sure.
> 
> I would guess a private agreement between 2 consenting parties would. . .but that's just a guess.


Anecdotal, but I've heard of prenups geting VERY specific on issues such as appearance and health.



> Anyway, just stuff for old men, I guess. . .hey, I'll admit, at the ripe ol age of 42, the smell of young, sweet and succulent you know what doesn't make me as batty as it used to. I'll admit it, LOL. No offense taken. . .


42, you old man you! 



> That's why I'm the father and my sons are their Dad's sons. I"m sure at age 22-35, they'll be driven batty by it as I was so that's why I stand by my rec. of a prenup, even if they don't have a "split clause."


My problem, that I am the hopeless romantic. 

My wife and myself, when we were marriad, zero need for a prenup. 

Nor if I was to marry her again this very day, would I consider one (knowing her as well as I do of course).

But for this modern day and age, with all the unknowns of two young people marrying, I believe it is better to at least be armed with knowledge.


----------



## BigBadWolf

Catherine602 said:


> Welcome back BBW,  glad you'er not upset by what I said. Your reaction is exactly like my husbands! It may provoke discussion and some of my "issues" have been lifted due to the feedback that I have gotten from posters on other forums. I hope I don't wear out my welcome so soon after joining this forum.


These forums, I often come and go as my schedule fits.

You seem to understand, I am not going to be offended nor would I concern myself with deliberately offending someone else, unless it was for all the right reasons.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

My, things are getting heated here. I did not read all of these posts, but have skimmed lots of Prenup talk, how to know if a woman is a gold digger, disagreements on how much she may have engaged in sex before marriage, how men get the bum deal in divorce -wife automatically getting the kids & house, etc. 

I have 5 sons. This subject is close to my heart. I can not imagine how upset I will be if I feel any of my sons has been greatly taken advantage off , used or abused. It will not sit well with me. 

I desire my sons to marry good girls as BBW feels, but I also understand Scannerguards earlier posts about maybe these "pure" girls might have sexually repressed themselves to some degree & may struggle in the bedroom. I see BBW is not at all concerned about this - cause he feels & fully expects his sons & all men to simply take charge Dominantly, all issues solved. 

I have had this very conversation with my oldest son, who plans to wait to even have sex until marraige! His take is not how Dominant he will be in case she is not too interested, but that GOD will just blissfully BLESS this union & the sex will flow easily, freely & daily. Now, this I tend to laugh at a little. NOT always the case. 

I try to explain to him that if he insists on being this PURE -- he had darn well better have MANY long & sexually fueled discussions about what he desires, expects from the marraige, what he infact NEEDS. And to have her fully open up about how she feels, and if she does not struggle in this area --I tell him to RUN !!!! He needs to know from his pure good girl woman that she struggles, desires him, wants him in the deepest way, that she indeed masterbates & is capable of an orgasm - she should be able to write him a romance novel about her lust towards him before the marraige. If she is incapable, I would say RUN. As he may have struggles in the bedroom. I think this advice may be better for MY SON than taking dominance classes. I can see he is alot like his father. 

I try to give him things to think about, since he is waiting until marraige, such as - what IF he is not able to give his wife an oragasm through intercourse, how will this affect him? Can he live with that, since in his mind NOW he feels this will automatically happen. 

But YES!! Pure good girl who can turn the sexual switch overnight on her wedding day & be his seductress , freely open to share all with him & explore, this would be the BEST woman to find. Since he has such high standards for himself, I know I have high for her. 

As far as money/gold digging, I know he would never consider a Pre-nup, never. It has too much of an UN-trusting connotation with it. Since he is a Saver , very frugal, I warn him to look for a woman who STRIVES to only live within her means, she is not embarrased or ashamed to buy 2nds, to use coupons, to look for sales, Use Ebay, enjoy Flea markets together, someone who is not financially pampered but knows the value of a $1 and uses it WISELY, even for caring for others & their needs. If she does not posses these things , I tell him to RUN, as I would feel they may experience many fights over $$ in their future. 

A Careful Saver, someone who prides themselves on having $$ for a rainy day will never match with an expectant irresponsible spender who wants pampering & is accustomed to living in luxery. She needs to have restraint , waiting to buy what she desires when it is in the best interest of the family they are building, good things come to those who wait & can afford them. 

Attraction, Sex, Money, Communication (how many kids, ideas on disclipline, if Mom will work/stay home, agreement on suburban living or country home, how important friends/family is in our life, healthy boundaries, etc) and those wonderful "Love Languages" - these are some of the things I feel that will make or break a marraige. If they find their match in these things , chances are they will never have to discuss the breaking of the home down the road.


----------



## Conrad

Catherine602 said:


> BTW. I thought most states did away with the archaic practice of lifetime alimony. I know several divorced woman who had a year or two of support with the stipulation that they need to get training for a job or find work in their profession. Lifetime support is unfair, it's like a man never being able to pay off the debt to his ex. Her role was vital but getting married and divorced should not bring the man a lifelong financial obligation. That can be construed as a punishment for a man having faith in the marriage.


I can testify that my midwestern state hasn't gotten rid of it. If I had gone to trial, I would have been ordered to pay nearly 2 grand a month for the rest of her life.

It was easier to just give her a half million to go away.


----------



## Scannerguard

I don't know. . .I can see SA's son's desire to have a pure girl since he's waiting to have sex until marriage.

I don't know. . . I am now conflicted about what I wrote and probably clouded by my own life experiences.

I just know I want my next woman to be a little ****ty


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Scannerguard said:


> I don't know. . . I am now conflicted about what I wrote and probably clouded by my own life experiences.
> 
> I just know I want my next woman to be a little ****ty


 Aren't we all clouded by our experiences! We are, as much as I like to blame Religion on why I struggled with Sex being "dirty", I know I was clouded by some of the things my own Mother did while single - almost in front of me, having sex with various men - It was Dirty! So I vowed from a young age to never let a man use me like that. And I held to it. But I came away with the feeling Sex was dirty, I wanted everything to be in the dark, hidden, this creeped right into my marriage. Life experiences can really screw us up sometimes! I was clouded for far too many years. 

No Scanner, too ***ty too quickly would only be good for a couple lays not a trusting life partner. Like everything else in life, some things are truly worth the waiting, gotta build up to that trust in a relationship, Flirt to your hearts content, but some things should be restrained for a time, how much more fullfilling when the unleashing comes with the emotional connection.


----------



## Conrad

Scannerguard said:


> I don't know. . .I can see SA's son's desire to have a pure girl since he's waiting to have sex until marriage.
> 
> I don't know. . . I am now conflicted about what I wrote and probably clouded by my own life experiences.
> 
> I just know I want my next woman to be a little ****ty


Well, you're from Jersey.

What can you expect


----------



## Mom6547

michzz said:


> I've spoken to two different attorneys.
> 
> BTW, Catherine, California has not gotten rid of what I agree is an archaic marital privilege--spousal support with no time limit.


Holy cow. That is simply crazy. And... a real blow to women who value equality. To your loverly ex? stbx? wife, I can't help but wish to say, Get a job, you deadbeat! But that might be over-zealous.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> Then why bother with a legal marriage certificate anyway? If I drunk drive I lose the privilege of my license. A marriage certificate comes with legal privileges as well. Perhaps we should look at it more for what it is for both parties involved and therein lies the mistake.


That is why I suggested a more serious contract than the one we currently have. But for me, the separation of htings like legal rights and emotional responsibilities is a good one.

The element of punishment is something I don't understand though. Someone above mentioned punishing the cheater. In no other civil contract would one party be punished for exiting the contract unless so stipulated directly in the original contract. Why would marriage be any different?

The more I think about it, the more I think "marriage" is a dumb idea.


----------



## Mom6547

SimplyAmorous said:


> No Scanner, too ***ty too quickly would only be good for a couple lays not a trusting life partner. Like everything else in life, some things are truly worth the waiting, gotta build up to that trust in a relationship, Flirt to your hearts content, but some things should be restrained for a time, how much more fullfilling when the unleashing comes with the emotional connection.


I would love to agree with you... well ok no I wouldn't. I have no specific *issue* with this way of thinking for others, though I won't recommend it to my kids. My only thought is if you don't get to know each other sexually, as well in all the other ways you get to know each other, how do you know you are not partnering with someone who is *thoroughly* incompatible.

I guess the other issue is how to you avoid the motivation to have sex in the chosing to get married equation. I know I have not seen ONE example of that working out well. 

Now ... I am assuming we are still talking about sex since I cannot tell what your asterisks are!


----------



## Mom6547

Brennan said:


> Trenton,
> Exactly! That is my point. The marital assets have already been divided, childrens rights have already been determined. Why should the cheater benefit from lifetime alimony when she was the person who broke that contract?


Well..... this is confusing. For the most part, as a matter of law, who "breaks the contract" is not often so cut and dried. Oft times in divorce proceedings, you will have situations in which one was proven to be cheating and the other likely with less proof. Or one might have been officially cheating but the other might have broken the "contract" in other ways. If I recall correctly one can blow a marriage also through abandonment, physical AND emotional, substance abuse... 

It can be so unclear who is "responsible" of a marital failure. I, frankly, don't even see the point.

I think lifetime alimony is DUMB. I think spousal support for anything other than getting a spouse make into the workforce is DUMB. But that said, I think the more the courts stay OUT of deciding who was "wrong" in a marriage the better. I can think of a lot of things my tax dollars are better spent on than a court system that negotiates who was a worse spouse.


----------



## Deejo

Read it and Weep

and then ...
weep some more

Both our mediator and my attorney that I had review our agreement said that despite my stbx's agreement to waive, past, present, and future alimony ... a judge (a particular judge actually) routinely ignores and voids those statements. I frankly, don't know how _that_ can possibly be legal.

Consequently, language to the effect is woven in throughout the divorce agreement.


----------



## michzz

Deejo said:


> Read it and Weep
> 
> and then ...
> weep some more
> 
> Both our mediator and my attorney that I had review our agreement said that despite my stbx's agreement to waive, past, present, and future alimony ... a judge (a particular judge actually) routinely ignores and voids those statements. I frankly, don't know how _that_ can possibly be legal.
> 
> Consequently, language to the effect is woven in throughout the divorce agreement.


Crossing off Massachusetts. Likely crossing off marriage once I'm out of this one.

Not worth whatever perceived gain to a relationship going forward.


----------



## AliceA

It's great to have it all sorted out in our heads how we want our children to choose a mate, male or female, it doesn't really matter, we want them to be happy and comfortable/successful in whatever they choose to do.

At the end of the day though, it's not so much what we say to them, but how we've raised them that will most count when they choose a lifelong partner. 

It will be a natural thing for them to be attracted to certain types of people, and failing in one relationship may be what they need to find success in another. What we want them to be is resilient I think. While none of us want to see our children fail at anything, if they get back up and keep going, it's not the end of the world for us or them if they do. They may not be attracted to a person who is everything we imagine a partner should be or start out as. That doesn't mean it won't work for them.

My children are not grown yet, but I know that right now they are learning about relationships, through everything my husband and I do with eachother and with them. In 20 yrs when they are probably looking for partners, I hope that I've enabled them to be able to choose wisely, and if not so wisely the first time, then better the second. I can speak to them of having few partners, of drawing up pre-nups etc, but they'll do what they wish at the end of the day, not what I tell them, and what I tell them may not be right for them anyway. They'll find their own path, like we all do. 

So I agree with many of your thoughts BBW, and trying to help our children do well and choose well is something we'll do regardless of how futile it may be when it's stacked up against decades of 'actions speak louder than words' sort of reality. Hopefully the actions have mostly been positive for them.


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> Read it and Weep
> 
> and then ...
> weep some more
> 
> Both our mediator and my attorney that I had review our agreement said that despite my stbx's agreement to waive, past, present, and future alimony ... a judge (a particular judge actually) routinely ignores and voids those statements. I frankly, don't know how _that_ can possibly be legal.
> 
> Consequently, language to the effect is woven in throughout the divorce agreement.


So much for the blue states, eh?

I live in a dark red state.

If she signs the document that says "waiver", it's waived.

That's all there is to it.


----------



## Scannerguard

Well, I know a judge has to certify anything that is negotiated.

Let's say I negotiated that I pay no child support, no alimony and I took everything.

Well, a judge may not certify that because it's so one-sided that he/she may see the case boomerang back to them in 2 years when the smoke has cleared and kids are living in squalor at one house.

That being said, I am not sure why a judge would have it in for guys to routinely throw out lifetime alimony awards. I am suspicious when I hear this.

In fact, trying to put myself in a judge's shoes, I see a problem with lifetime alimony just from an enforcement standpoint. How many cases beyond just simple child support (which there is emancipation from) end up with arrears (spelling?) on lifetime alimony?

Then, the wife is back in court again, saying, "Ex-hubby owes me alimony."

At some point, I would think judges would prefer lightening their dockets - preferring a lump sum alimony award over a lifetime alimony award, when so much can happen in a life (disability, illness, job loss, etc.). Then they know it's settled. He paid her $50,000 instead of $1000/month for life (or whatever).

I would think a woman would prefer a lump sum but one thing I have learned, women are very emotional when it comes this.

Ask a woman in the throes of divorce what they would prefer:

A. $5/week
B. $100,000 lump sum

and I think 80% of women would go for the weekly sum, even against their attorney's advice (well, a lot of attorney's really don't care what their clients get, they just want to keep the meter running).

This is such a problem that even Great Financial Pundit and advocate of educating women on finances, Suze Orman has said women have got to be better educated and make better financial decisions in divorce.

I offered my wife the whole house in exchange for no child support.

Now, at the end, it looks like I am getting 40-50% of the house and no child support (she may owe me if I get a 50/50 award in parenting).

But she couldn't wrap her head around the idea that what I was presenting was very generous - just let me go and let me see the kids when I want. 

In fact, ask most men and sons, and that's what they would want in divorce and would pay a premium for - Freedom.

Freedom to leave. Freedom to parent. Freedom to prowl like a Tom Cat.

There is nothing like freedom.

She couldn't think like a businesswoman though and put a price on the freedom for me, to emancipate me from the iron shackles of marriage.

(allow me some poetic license today, ladies  )


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Scanner,
Shackles of marriage? Is this really how guys think? If that's the thinking and the whole "she's a ball and chain" why do we even bother in the first place?
I would hope my partner didn't marriage as a life sentence with me as the warden.


----------



## Conrad

Brennan said:


> Scanner,
> Shackles of marriage? Is this really how guys think? If that's the thinking and the whole "she's a ball and chain" why do we even bother in the first place?
> I would hope my partner didn't marriage as a life sentence with me as the warden.


I've always been amazed at how many are so eager to don those chains.


----------



## Scannerguard

I'm sorry. . .I was just being facetious with my poetic license. . .weird sense of humor.

What I meant to say was there is often a price to be had from the release from the gloriouis institution of marriage after serving your time with the inmates at the asylum, specifically your bunkmate.


----------



## Scannerguard

No, to be serious. . .no, that's not how I view marriage.

Actually, I think marriage can become like a prision or slavery or negative connotation or it has to potential to be a great synergistic partnership.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Scanner,
I don't know. I hear (and know) alot of guys who think from the get go that "game over" and "ball and chain". I never understood that mentality. Why marry then? Was it a **** or get off the pot moment?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Scanner,
Also add in your analogy about the Tom Cat and it leaves me wondering more. Are married men basically "trapped" in marriage all yearning to be free?


----------



## Deejo

Brennan said:


> Scanner,
> Also add in your analogy about the Tom Cat and it leaves me wondering more. Are married men basically "trapped" in marriage all yearning to be free?


Only if the litterbox stinks, the food's lousy and she stops using that toy with the feather on it to keep us playful and attentive.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo,
Alright, I am done with the Tom Cat analogy! LOL. I am trying to wrap my head around how married men really think/feel. My own marriage is on the rocks and while he tells me he likes being married, his actions state otherwise (ignoring me, putting up walls, etc.) Was it game over from the get go? I mean, he didn't really have much game. Lol.


----------



## Deejo

I'll be happy to tell you how I felt about marriage.

I was 'all in'. I wanted to be in love for a lifetime. I wanted to experience my life with her at my side.

I didn't want to believe all of the bad press about marriage, and then one day had no choice but to acknowledge that after just a few years, I was living the bad press about marriage.

Quite honestly? Your husband sounds like my ex. She was 'content' with exactly the way things were. I was not. From my perspective, I carried an absolute unfair burden of making sure our life worked. To make my point, I stopped carrying it - and of course things absolutely fell apart.


----------



## Conrad

Brennan said:


> Deejo,
> Alright, I am done with the Tom Cat analogy! LOL. I am trying to wrap my head around how married men really think/feel. My own marriage is on the rocks and while he tells me he likes being married, his actions state otherwise (ignoring me, putting up walls, etc.) Was it game over from the get go? I mean, he didn't really have much game. Lol.


Not necessarily.

Just curious - how did you two "work out" things in the bedroom?

Negotiation? Compromise? Appointment?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo,
Thank you for your honest response. Maybe he has become MY ball and chain. Not sure. He came from a family that has a wonderful marriage. 42 years and they still are together and happy. They are the most boring couple you will ever meet. The watch t.v. or read. That's it. Neither have any hobbies anymore and they have just molded in to one. Me? I came from parents who divorced and their marriage was never a good thing. I walked in to marriage with my eyes wide open but somehow thought he was different. Marriage with him would be different. He is so different from his Mom and Dad. He had hobbies, dreams, goals, plans, passion. Now, he is just like them. Content to just be. Meanwhile I want to go skydiving, travel and live what I see on television, not just watch it. 
My thoughts range wildly on this. Did he change BECAUSE of marriage or was he just good at hiding all this until after we married. Maybe he changed because I put up walls and therefore he retreated. I don't know. Every now and then I get a glimpse of him, the original him. He opens up but at that point it feels like a total stranger talking to me. I get very upset and I think that reinforces shut down mode. What the hell happened to the assertive, take no prisoners kind of guy I met?!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Conrad,
Appointment, lol. Yeah, it felt like that so many times. It is so weird. He has a much harder time separating his emotions with sex. He doesn't want it if he feels angry or sad. We went for 4 months one time without it and I slowly died inside. He literally shut down. No porn, other things, nothing. Sex drive just went down. For me, sex IS the connection. For him, intimacy outside the bedroom is the connection. Hand holding, cuddling, etc. I don't want to do any of that with somebody who treats me like last on his list, yet I am up for sex any time and he is not. It is very frustrating.


----------



## Conrad

Brennan said:


> Conrad,
> Appointment, lol. Yeah, it felt like that so many times. It is so weird. He has a much harder time separating his emotions with sex. He doesn't want it if he feels angry or sad. We went for 4 months one time without it and I slowly died inside. He literally shut down. No porn, other things, nothing. Sex drive just went down. For me, sex IS the connection. For him, intimacy outside the bedroom is the connection. Hand holding, cuddling, etc. I don't want to do any of that with somebody who treats me like last on his list, yet I am up for sex any time and he is not. It is very frustrating.


I've been married twice.

The first time I married a seemingly meek woman who I thought wouldn't hurt me. She was first on my list, but also last. I thought if I made enough money for my wife to stay home, everything would be great - and we'd all be taken care of.

From our honeymoon on, we never really clicked in bed. I'm not sure we ever got over that. At least I know I didn't.

So, while I'm now a bit of a BBW disciple about standing firm and being the man "she fell in love with", there wasn't any return on being this man in my first marriage.

So, I suppose I'm a bit of a late bloomer.

From your post, I hear that you would love for him to be the man you fell in love with. The interesting man with a curious mind and many interests. Feeling safe and secure is a good thing - until it gets in the way of ambition and adventure.

He sounds like he's sensitive. How are your conversations? Do you empathize with him? Really hear him?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Wow, Conrad. Well, from the beginning we didn't "click" in bed either but that is because he didn't have much experience. I did teach him however.  
He is VERY assertive in his career, he has to be given what he does. He used to be that way with me. He had a thirst for learning, living and was very passionate about everything he did. Ran 9 miles a day, played competitive racquetball, was very opinionated and would let you know his thoughts. I loved it. I loved him. He was also very compassionate and sensitive in a sense that he was really in tune with other peoples needs. He was the go to guy and the person that all his friends could depend on if the need arose. While he has friends, he has 4 true friends. These guys have been friends since he was 12 - 14. He would go to the ends of the earth for them and they would for him. I just can't help but wonder if he would do that for me. I doubt it. 
As for our conversations, I know he feels like I am attacking him. At this point his words are so hollow to me it is impossible for me to take them at face value. Telling me that I am the love of his life yet totally ignoring me makes it hard to really hear him. I have no idea how to get past it. He says "just do". Meaning, forget about everything behind us and move forward. In theory that sounds awesome but how do I do that when his words vs. actions don't match up? It sucks.


----------



## turnera

I may be off base, and it may not fit every situation, but I've tended to feel that men are raised to have fun. Women are raised to look forward to marriage and babies. Men often get married for the good, frequent sex and not having to roam any more, as well as some companionship, and FUN.

After a few years of marriage, the sex slides, she gets into the family mode instead of the fun mode, she restricts how much fun he can still have with his friends, and marriage turns out to be a big bore. After all, he was raised to have fun. His parents never bothered to teach him about washing clothes or mopping floors or burping babies.

As for her, her dreams always included a very involved husband, who loved nothing more than helping her decorate the house, change diapers, and go on school field trips with her. And what was she stuck with? A grown-up kid who wanted nothing more than to watch tv and play video games.

JMHO


----------



## Scannerguard

I"m sorry, Brennan, that your marriage is on the rocks and I'm sorry you were "hanging on my words" so to speak.

To answer your question, no, I was a lot like Deejo. Proud to be married, proud to say, "I got the better end of the deal" (although sometimes I wonder if I was forcing that statement), and I certainly, MOST CERTAINLY, didn't leave my wife to "go prowl" like a Tom Cat.

I left her for one reason - she was unhappy and I was the cause of that. Remove me and you remove the cause.

Does every man have yearnings of looking outside the window and saying, "Gee, I'd love to just go knock over that trash can!" Yes. But it's not like it occupied my life constantly. Like I said, it's an occasional yearning of the domesticated male.

Again, I have referred people to the movie Family Man with Nicholas Cage (if you are a fan) to get an idea of the conflicted feelings all men feel. The writers even illustrated how illogical his feelings were at times (the wife had given up a lot too to be in the marriage). Go rent it again if you want a good idea of what a Family Man goes through. That being said, your husband may just be a perfect domesticated cat. . .happy to spend his life in front of the TV.

I mean, if he goes running 9 miles, that takes about 1-2 hours/day. (I am assuming a 8-10 minute mile)

How's that going to fly with you, Brennan? I"ll tell you how it would fly with my stb-x -

"YOu are out exercising and I am here stuck with the kids!!!"

So. . .you throw those things out the window when you get married.

So. . .I hope you don't fault him too much for lack of ambition in many departments. YEs, marriage robs you of personal ambition often. . .actually, come to think of it, I guess parenthood does that more. 

But I wasn't really THAT conflicted.

I do think men shouldn't get married til about 40 and then they should marry a 26 year old or something.

To me, that's perfect as far as reproductive years, responsibility and men actually being worth a damn, as no man is worth a damn until 40.

By then, if we are to continue with the generalizations that Tunera was forward (which BTW I loved), the woman is past being worth a damn after age 40. After age 40, she usually has kids, wrinkles, cellulite, and most importantly, MOST IMPORTANTLY - issues. If a man hasn't been married until then, he's a *****in asset!!!

I don't know. . .I really love generalizations and the generalization about men being "big kids" is certainly a valid one, one endorsed by all TV shows where the woman is the wise, hard working parent and the Dad is the Big Dope and Clown.

However, get past Big TV advertising and the stereotypes, I think men have to deal with a lot of depression, mood swings, and dsymennorheic attitudes over a lifetime. In a way, it's like having a 13 year old girl in the home a lot.

Your moods aren't easy to deal with, ladies. For that, I am entitled to act like a Big Dope and Kid. It's my coping mechanism.


----------



## Scannerguard

Anyone like Everybody Loves Raymond? I really never watched that show but am watching now sometimes on TVLand because it's on a time slot I am sitting down a lot.

As usual, sometimes I watch something more in syndication.

I liked the one episode where Raymond concludes his wife has PMS and he's presenting her with supplements that are supposed to help her.

Of course, he's on the losing end of that one - diagnosing her with PMS. (things not to do in marriage, sons, to stay on topic) The actress playing opposite Raymond does a wonderful job, while Raymond looking like the eternal Big Dope (as Tunera generalizes) goes into a PMS rage on Raymond.

I thought the show did a good job on a commentary on marriage and family.

Someone wise once said marriage is the reproduction of 2 families.

If you think about it, it's true. Like DNA, family traditions and values get "mixed", sometimes 50/50, but more often, 70/30 or something.

You could kind of see this as Raymond's family took over everything in the culture of the household.

Anyway, yes, I acted like a Big Dope like Raymond. . .but I had a PMSing wife too like he had.

I am not sure what you want your husbands and sons to be?

Women? You think another woman would put up with your borderline insane PMSing? Think again. Your girlfriends would backstab you or boot you right out of the house. Be thankful your husbands have coping mechanisms where they "ignore you" and "tune you down" like a remote on the TV.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Scanner,
I never liked that show. The wife was a total shrew and he was a petulant man child. It irritated me beyond belief. Couldn't they just act like adults?
Yikes, your comment about men being awesome at 40, whereas women become obsolete stung. Just turned 39. 40 is looming. Not happy about it. Do I become disposable at that point? That's also the message that big advertisers project. 40 year old women are no longer attractive, sexy or worthwhile. As you said....the 26 year old is. Maybe hubbie wants the 26 year old? I doubt he would know what to do with her.


----------



## Mom6547

Oh Brennan. I am 42. DH thinks I am rockin' more now than ever before. His joking comment about 26 yos is that yah they have tight bods but they don't know what to do with them and eventually they attempt to speak... That never goes well!

I don't know how to help with your scene but never doubt that you are the sexy, admirably person you SHOULD know you are.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Scanner,
Also, I would love love love it if he left for 2 hours to go for a run. At least he would be pursuing something. Our kids are older so that makes it easier. Even when they were little, I took no issue with it. I had my own hobby. I was a fencer and that took me away many nights. I think a healthy marriage includes two people who pursue outside hobbies and then come together and discuss them. I felt a sense of pride when I watched him win a racquetball tournament. He was damn good. Or when he would run in half marathons watching him and cheering him on was awesome. Six months ago I got a glimmer of the man he used to be. He came home and announced he was going to train for the MS-150. I was so supportive and told him that I would take care of getting sponsors/donations. To date, he has not gotten on his bike.


----------



## Conrad

Brennan,

I could tell you more - like my daughter's suicide attempt and how that rocked the foundations. (I can still see the bloody butcher knife laying on the table). But, this isn't about me. It's simply me telling you what I've experienced and what I believe actually works.

But, what I have found to be totally true (in all situations) - and I hear in your words - is that there is no "connection" when you and hubby speak to one another.

The key here is that you cannot change someone else. You can only change how you respond. Are you willing to do this? It takes self-discipline, but it's not a game. 

It involves really examining what's inside and how you react.

I actually believe your husband when he says you're the love of his life. He's simply resigned that things in your relationship are the way they will be. He's not logging on here and complaining, he's simply making do.

You said he's sensitive. Do you listen to him?

And, when I say "listen", I mean really truly listen. Not listening with the intent to speak. Not listening with the intent to escape blame. Not listening with an urgency to fix.

Just listening.

When you speak with him next time, examine how your insides feel. Are you seeking something in the conversation? Are you trying to prove a point? Is there a voice in your head that says, "This is just the way I am"

It does not have to be that way.

I can assure you.


----------



## Catherine602

Cellulite - how cruel men are and they wonder why their wives don't want to have sex with them. It karma. Does anyone ever wonder why men are so cruel and say the things they do? They know the insecurities of women better than we do ourselves. I have rarely seen a woman praying upon the fears and doubts of an aging male. When these men say that they find a woman of a certain physical perfection to be the only woman they will have, I sometimes wonder where they think they will get her? 

Can you imagine some 30 year old married woman reading this stuff. She comes here maybe looking for answers to try to show her husband some love. Yes, that would be me. I'm trying to show my husband that I love him in a way that I am beginning to understand he needs to feel loved. To free myself up and be adventurous for the man I love. And then I read this and wish I hadn't read it. I hate to think this is really how men are. 

So maybe I was right all along, maybe his desire for sex has nothing to do with me as a person, just a physical release with a convenient vagina. If he had a younger one he would throw me over for it. So why should I make it a priority if this is how he thinks. So why am I bothering to trouble myself. Let him be frustrated, maybe a sexless marriage is a consequence of the constant relentless barrage of negative messages, female bashing. 

It makes me feel cold distant and weary. It that what these statements are meant to do? Make women feel they have a shelf life and that's just the male DNA, just that hard fact. 

Do you ever wonder about the men who say these things - I often wonder what they look like, how skillful they are as lovers, if they have problems meeting and keeping the interest of women. They seem so hostile towards woman I am certain that they cannot hide it up close and personal, it leaks out like a toxin. 

This man makes a pronouncement 26 yo woman perfect match for 40 yo men - as if woman are a bunch of mindless collections of sex parts waiting to be plucked off the shelf. A man comes along and determines her worthiness and he takes her off the shelf. She of course has no say in the matter, I suppose she should feel grateful that she passed his exacting standards. 

No one asks the right questions - what do you have to offer a young woman, how are you worthy? What makes you worthy of the love and companionship of any woman? Male DNA and birthright really does not work in the real world. How do you translate old bitterness, anger, fear and insecurity into love and trust? How do you get from a feeling of being entitled to a physical perfection just because of your DNA to feelings of respect and appreciation? Entitled people never feel appreciation they think it's their due, yet appreciation is the foundation of love. 

Actually, the male in the animal kingdom has a short mating time; they are violently replaced by younger stronger males. Old males don't mate. The female population group is stable but the males last maybe 2 years at the most. So for all the talk about male DNA, I think the the increased in woman not having sex with the long term partner, cheating and divorcing are in the nature of female DNA, we like a change every few years or we get bored.


----------



## turnera

Except for the last paragraph, I hardily agree.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Catherine,

Shelf life for women = yes. I feel it, I know it. 

Shelf life for men = as long as he is well off and not bald, game on.

If we were to divorce, I would date somebody over 40. If he were to date, he would date somebody in their 20's. An over 40 year old man who is educated and can hold a conversation is the man for me. I value intelligence. He would try and go for the Rhodes Scholar, 24 year old but I doubt he would find her. Instead left with vapid and stupid. Ever hear a 20 something talk these days? I'd rather masturbate with a cheese grater.


----------



## Trenton

Catherine, I flat out loved your post. I loved it so much that I wanted to print it out and staple it all over my house, shower with it, hand it out on street corners and slip it into the covers of Cosmopolitan magazine. If it were a man I would give my soul to marry it and if it were God I would gladly pray to it.

I loved it that much. It's a message that needs to be heard as loud as the bullpoop that is constantly puked out on threads about women all over these boards. It needs to be understood and embraced by women so that we can be better women and men can stop using us as their sorry butt excuse for lameness as people.

Thank you.


----------



## Conrad

Brennan said:


> Catherine,
> 
> Shelf life for women = yes. I feel it, I know it.
> 
> Shelf life for men = as long as he is well off and not bald, game on.
> 
> If we were to divorce, I would date somebody over 40. If he were to date, he would date somebody in their 20's. An over 40 year old man who is educated and can hold a conversation is the man for me. I value intelligence. He would try and go for the Rhodes Scholar, 24 year old but I doubt he would find her. Instead left with vapid and stupid. Ever hear a 20 something talk these days? I'd rather masturbate with a cheese grater.


I'm actually a bit bummed out you didn't respond to my last post.

Que sera sera.


----------



## nice777guy

I haven't read all of the responses.

The answer to the original question - how to teach your kids about marriage...

Find a few of the more detailed stories on this site and discuss them with your sons. Describe the real failures and successes that are seen on this board. Show them - through the stories here - what seems to work and what doesn't.

The stories here are real - the emotions are raw - the value in the lessons that can be learned are immeasurable.

And even if the people here don't always reach a consensus on how things should be handled, everyone learns something by reading so many different points of view. If nothing else, you learn how other people view the world of marriage and relationships.

Sad thing is that most of us got the "birds and the bees" talk, none of us are really told as children how a true marriage works.


----------



## turnera

Brennan said:


> Catherine,
> 
> Shelf life for women = yes. I feel it, I know it.
> 
> Shelf life for men = as long as he is well off and not bald, game on.
> 
> If we were to divorce, I would date somebody over 40. If he were to date, he would date somebody in their 20's. An over 40 year old man who is educated and can hold a conversation is the man for me. I value intelligence. He would try and go for the Rhodes Scholar, 24 year old but I doubt he would find her. Instead left with vapid and stupid. Ever hear a 20 something talk these days? I'd rather masturbate with a cheese grater.


 My DH has often joked that he was going to go find a younger, prettier girl. I just pat him on the shoulder and say, 'If one of them will take you, you go right ahead.' Then we just laugh about it.


----------



## turnera

niceguy, that is a GREAT idea! I've never thought of that!


----------



## lime

That all sounds like great advice! I haven’t been following this entire thread, but I would like to contribute to the original discussion…

1. I totally agree with niceguy! People remember stories, not statistics, and this is a great way to open into some really good talks with your kids about relationships.

2. Your general suggestions for marriage are great--but I might also talk with them about the day-to-day things they can be doing to sustain a happy marriage… Like splitting the chores, for example (boring, I know): this can be a huge source of resentment, and can cause problems if the wife feels like an unappreciated maid--then she can guilt trip or manipulate the husband into doing everything, while simultaneously losing respect for him since he will let himself get bossed around…It’s just bad. If the husband agrees to a set amount of chores, and does those things well and without complaining, then the wife will view him as responsible and helpful and he won’t have to bend over backwards to placate her and everyone wins. Also day-to-day stuff like spending quality time together (not just “together” in front of the TV), being sure to joke around and flirt sometimes, holding each other to respectable standards for arguments (absolutely NO door-slamming, name calling, or threats of divorce) etc. is invaluable. I would also talk to them about child rearing specifics--like how to be a great “teacher” to kids by asking leading questions to help kids figure things out on their own (rather than just telling them all the answers right away). There are obviously tons of things relating to daily life that you can talk about haha, but maybe pick at least a few of the ones you believe to be most important to share with your sons.

3. I feel that pre-nups are ok when they protect savings/properties that were owned by the individuals BEFORE getting married, but nitpicky stipulations (like “if she gains 10 lbs then I give her $50 less per week until the weight is lost”) are for business transactions, not marriages. I know that everyone here thinks that their children are perfect little angels--or at least morally sensible enough not to finagle someone out of their life savings during a divorce--but keep in mind that that gold digging soulless witch who is out there ruining lives is also somebody’s daughter. I think it’s important to first teach our kids to be moral people, and to be able to accurately judge potential spouses--including getting to know their character flaws, because everyone has at least a couple even if they are small--before we go nagging them to get a pre-nup. 

4. I would gently warn you that even though you think your son is “a mere college student,” he’s already off on his own, making his own choices, and probably more adult than you realize. It’s never too early to start talking to your kids about these things! Even your son in high school probably has insights that will surprise you, so I would encourage you to start communicating sooner rather than later. Also, don't be afraid to learn something from your kids about relationships--they might have learned some interesting things on their own. I’m only saying this because I’m barely older than your son and will (hopefully! =) be getting engaged sometime relatively soon to someone who is also not that much older than your son, and who has been supporting himself while being in school full time. Yes, we are both college students, but we have learned a lot more than art history from the 1720s and beer pong and how to make mac n cheese in a dorm microwave


----------



## Scannerguard

Okay, I was wondering what I wrote that touched the nerve of the lovely (older) ladies here and it was this:



> I do think men shouldn't get married til about 40 and then they should marry a 26 year old or something.
> 
> To me, that's perfect as far as reproductive years, responsibility and men actually being worth a damn, as no man is worth a damn until 40.
> 
> By then, if we are to continue with the generalizations that Tunera was forward (which BTW I loved), the woman is past being worth a damn after age 40. After age 40, she usually has kids, wrinkles, cellulite, and most importantly, MOST IMPORTANTLY - issues. If a man hasn't been married until then, he's a *****in asset!!!


Okay first of all. . .it was a generalization and that's okay, right? We can generalize.

I find it funny you chose to focus on the cellulite, which actually to me, and most men is probably the least of the "issues".

Let me break it down for you why women over 40 years old stop being worth a damn (again, just like a man who is 28 years old isn't usually worth a damn, generally speaking):

55%: Issues (yes, over half)
25%: Kids, and how women often prioritize raising kids over marriage
20%: Wrinkles/cellulite

If you would stop so much with the Oil of Olay and cellulite reduction and worry more about the 55%, the resentments you hold and grudges and so forth, that's what makes you worth more than a damn past age 40.

You see, even the posts above, you went off on some tangent about, "If they feel that way, then I'll be resentful." instead of taking it for the thoughtful, if not brash, coaching it is meant to be.

I guess that's the difference between me and a lot of people. I always liked and responded to Coach Hardass when I was a kid, who told me I was no better than a pile of monkey dung. Coach Niceguy was okay, but I didn't really become a better player.

If you want Coach Niceguy. . .well. . .see Niceguy, I guess.

I hope you are all doing well.

And what's the matter with bald men? Bald is beautiful  C'mon, ladies, you know you want to run your hands over a smooth bald head.


----------



## Scannerguard

> If we were to divorce, I would date somebody over 40. If he were to date, he would date somebody in their 20's. An over 40 year old man who is educated and can hold a conversation is the man for me. I value intelligence. He would try and go for the Rhodes Scholar, 24 year old but I doubt he would find her. Instead left with vapid and stupid. Ever hear a 20 something talk these days? I'd rather masturbate with a cheese grater.


Brennan,

Okay, now we are cooking with gas.

Hmmm. . .I am not sure how to say this indelicately.

But enough talking and more screwing!!!!

My ex-gf said the same thing. . .she wants conversation. Everything was about Conversation. You know what I figured out? Conversation to an older woman is much like screwing is to a younger man. You can't get enough.

I would talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and I think I did very well - talked religion, politics, healthcare reform, the mating habits of the African Tse-tse fly, relationships, just about anythig. . .but I don't know. . .I guess that's why YOU would date "up". . .a 55 year old man can sit there and just talk I guess.

At a certain point, I concluded, "YOu know. . .this is like sex for women - conversation." And I would purposely not answer the phone and crack open a beer and watch the ballgame and flip with the remote after a jog.

I don't know. . .like I said, I think you are hitting a bonafide reason why you, around 40 years old, would want to date a 55 year old man and a 40 year old man wants a 28 year old girl (or is perhaps economically and biologically best suited).

I'll admit it - it's not all about conversation, or the conversation should be let's say "sparse" and even "superficial" and that's okay.

The Cougar thing works well for a hot fling though.


----------



## lime

Scannerguard said:


> (again, just like a man who is 28 years old isn't usually worth a damn, generally speaking):
> 
> And what's the matter with bald men? Bald is beautiful  C'mon, ladies, you know you want to run your hands over a smooth bald head.


Ok I'm not going to argue about the 40-year-old women just yet. BUT, I will say that as a 21-year-old female, I find bald, middle-aged men with mid-life-crisis-sports-cars, hairy backs, beer bellies, and receding hairlines to be unattractive. I don't care how rich they are lol! Just...yea, I'm not really interested. Especially when comparing them to my young, hot boyfriend who works out and still has enough energy for marathon sex  Ok so maybe I'm biased  There are definitely a few attractive middle aged men of course, but as Scannerguard so eloquently put... ISSUES. Men can have issues too, especially divorced men with kids.

Maybe having a 401k and good job security is a plus when you're 40, BUT usually by that age, your career is already established and no longer has potential to grow. You're getting older, tired out, can't keep up with all those newfangled technologies... kidding  But it is true that you don't have the potential or the flexibility that you did when you were younger. It's not like you can take 3 months off of work to go travel, or quit your job for awhile then find a new one. You have more freedom to do these things in your 20s, which means your life can be more exciting and spontaneous...Which is something that we 20-something women want, afterall!

ALSO, maturity is NOT something that always directly correlates with age. I know people my age who are more mature than some middle aged people. I know middle aged people who are wise beyond their years and yet still have the youthful vigor of someone in their 20s. It all depends on the individual! I get that since you're all older, you believe yourselves to be wiser, but unfortunately that's not the case for everyone. There are plenty of middle aged people out there who keep making the same mistakes over and over again (divorced 4 times? Really?!) or who think that getting a few wrinkles and a 6-figure income suddenly makes them qualified to offer advice on all aspects of life and relationships. I don't know, maybe you all think that, because I'm only 21, my comments are naive or smart-***ed or "like masturbating with a cheese grater," but I do think it's valuable to realize that life situations can be vastly different for different people, and this does not always tie in closely with age.


----------



## Scannerguard

Hey, what's the matter with hairy backs? C'mon ladies, you know you like the simean look 

No, of course middle aged men can come with their issues too. And I'll admit, I can be a (more than) little immature at times. But then surprisingly mature as I talk about portfolios, insurance, and other "mature" subjects.

Actually, I have to tip your hat to the opinion that I heard someone summarize it eloquently once - "When you get married young, you grow up together." Which is really true.

Except the problem IS (generally, and I mean generally, not everyone) is that women always outpace men on maturity by about 5-10 years. So a 21 year old male and a 21 year old female such as yourself. . .well, it may match well while you are all having your hormones rage right now. . .but I will say you lack life experience to realize, in about 3-6 years, you'll be thinking, "Okay, family, stability, career, house."

And your boyfriends is thinking. . .um. . .um. . .

"Sex. Sex. Sex."

Totally clueless. And honestly, they SHOULDN"T be thinking, "Family. Kids. Etc." They're too young and still knuckleheaded a bit.

All of the sudden the 30-35 year old man looks a little more attractive at 25 years old, just as now, your boyfriend will hook up with an 18 year old female at 25 years old and she'll think "Oh heee''ssss so mature."

(admit it - just like in high school, you thought frat boys were so mature, when in reality, all they were was. . .well, frat boys. ..word!)

You'll see.

No, I dont' dismiss your opinion at all because it's actually correct on many dimensions (everything is specific to the persons).


----------



## Scannerguard

And I'll let the forum know about everything. . .there's a good chance I am hooking up with a 27 year old hottie right now (nosering and all - I mean, this IS the cliche, right?).

If the forum is right, I'll come limping back here in 3 months, with a bad case of lumbago, bursitis, and other ailments and wondering what I was thinking.



(hopefully)


----------



## Amplexor

Scannerguard said:


> (admit it - just like in high school, you thought frat boys were so mature, when in reality, all they were was. . .well, frat boys. ..word!)


OUCH! Hey Scan, I was a frat boy a we were mature. Er, well, thinking about it now....... TOGA, TOGA, TOGA. You're right.


----------



## Scannerguard

LOL. . .hell, I have a theory - hook the frat boys up with Mrs. Robinson. No pregnancies. Helps them grow up. Mrs. Robinson gets laid.

Coo-coo-ca-choo.


----------



## Scannerguard

Okay, let me help the ladies self-esteem I shot here with my offhanded comments on 40 years old not being worth a damn with an absolute immutable fact about yourselves.

I have exchanged a few photos with some of you ladies (facebooked as friends) as I befriended you and I am sure you know (I am only reminding you) that there are many, MANY younger guys who would love, absolutely almost NEED, an older woman when they are 25 to take for a "spin." (or more likely, you take them for a spin)

Frankly, I am not sure why older, divorced women don't. . .it's an opportunity for the two sexes to play off of each other - youth/energy and maturity/experience.

It's a probably a Top 3 fantasy of a young guy.

Women seem gunshy still about trying the cougar thing. Even Brennan immediatley said. . ."I would want an older guy." (which suggests 50ish at age 39) so she can have conversation and then goes on with Catherine to lament men's superficial desires.

We are then back to validating my theory that a 5-10 year differential is optimal.

I recall I was watching a show one time where a mother knew about her 21 y.o. old son's involvement with an older woman in her 40's, about her age. She actually approved because she saw that immediately he started to grow up and his demeanor changed (getting laid can do that) and he was setting goals and maturing and was thankful for the woman's presence in her son's life and basically just stayed out of it until it ran it's course. She also didn't have to worry about him knocking a young girl up or getting a STD (which I suppose statistically is a little offset by an older woman) as he acted like a man *****. An older man knocks up a young 27 year old hottie, well, it's not the end of the world and years of finanical hardship on everyone (still not the best of circumstances tho, mind you!). And men are usually wiser by then also. 

Yes, ladies, take male sexual frustration out of the equation and magical things can happen and men mature.

Anyway, I feel bad I made some ladies here feel bad about their age and so this is my own awkward way of atonement I guess.

You all still got it!!!


----------



## Trenton

Scannerguard said:


> Okay, let me help the ladies self-esteem I shot here with my offhanded comments on 40 years old not being worth a damn with an absolute immutable fact about yourselves.
> 
> I have exchanged a few photos with some of you ladies (facebooked as friends) as I befriended you and I am sure you know (I am only reminding you) that there are many, MANY younger guys who would love, absolutely almost NEED, an older woman when they are 25 to take for a "spin." (or more likely, you take them for a spin)
> 
> Frankly, I am not sure why older, divorced women don't. . .it's an opportunity for the two sexes to play off of each other - youth/energy and maturity/experience.
> 
> It's a probably a Top 3 fantasy of a young guy.
> 
> Women seem gunshy still about trying the cougar thing. Even Brennan immediatley said. . ."I would want an older guy." (which suggests 50ish at age 39) so she can have conversation and then goes on with Catherine to lament men's superficial desires.
> 
> We are then back to validating my theory that a 5-10 year differential is optimal.
> 
> I recall I was watching a show one time where a mother knew about her 21 y.o. old son's involvement with an older woman in her 40's, about her age. She actually approved because she saw that immediately he started to grow up and his demeanor changed (getting laid can do that) and he was setting goals and maturing and was thankful for the woman's presence in her son's life and basically just stayed out of it until it ran it's course. She also didn't have to worry about him knocking a young girl up or getting a STD (which I suppose statistically is a little offset by an older woman) as he acted like a man *****. An older man knocks up a young 27 year old hottie, well, it's not the end of the world and years of finanical hardship on everyone (still not the best of circumstances tho, mind you!). And men are usually wiser by then also.
> 
> Yes, ladies, take male sexual frustration out of the equation and magical things can happen and men mature.
> 
> Anyway, I feel bad I made some ladies here feel bad about their age and so this is my own awkward way of atonement I guess.
> 
> You all still got it!!!


In no uncertain terms, you gross me out.


----------



## nice777guy

Trenton said:


> In no uncertain terms, you gross me out.


:rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:

Love your blunt response! But I think he actually has a reasonable point!


----------



## Trenton

nice777guy said:


> :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:
> 
> Love your blunt response! But I think he actually has a reasonable point!


Possibly for some men, even most men, but not a man I would ever look twice at.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> Possibly for some men, even most men, but not a man I would ever look twice at.


Just like Kate Winslet would never look twice at young DeCaprio.


----------



## Kobo

My advise would be "Choose Wisely"


----------



## greenpearl

Scan,

Your posts are funny. 

Where did you get this sense of humor? 

When I was a young girl, I liked to date men who were older. 

When I was 30, men who were older than me were not attractive to me anymore. I was interested in men my own age at least. 

My husband is 4 years younger than me. SEX, GREAT. He is young, he has all the energy to fccc me. I have such a high sex drive, even a young man can't handle me. Since he is young, at least he has no problem getting an erection! Please don't be offended, I am sure you are still fine! 

I am a MILF.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Scannerguard said:


> Okay, let me help the ladies self-esteem I shot here with my offhanded comments on 40 years old not being worth a damn with an absolute immutable fact about yourselves.
> 
> I have exchanged a few photos with some of you ladies (facebooked as friends) as I befriended you and I am sure you know (I am only reminding you) that there are many, MANY younger guys who would love, absolutely almost NEED, an older woman when they are 25 to take for a "spin." (or more likely, you take them for a spin)
> 
> Frankly, I am not sure why older, divorced women don't. . .it's an opportunity for the two sexes to play off of each other - youth/energy and maturity/experience.
> 
> It's a probably a Top 3 fantasy of a young guy.
> 
> Women seem gunshy still about trying the cougar thing.


In all honesty , IF something happened to my dear husband & I found myself widowed, I would DEFINETELY be up for a roll in the hay with a younger man (this would be breaking all of my morals of coarse- but the temptation would most likely win out), I know he could "keep up with me!". I have become quite the Cougar the last 2 years.


----------



## nice777guy

SimplyAmorous said:


> In all honesty , IF something happened to my dear husband & I found myself widowed, I would DEFINETELY be up for a roll in the hay with a younger man (this would be breaking all of my morals of coarse- but the temptation would most likely win out), I know he could "keep up with me!". I have become quite the Cougar the last 2 years.


Hooray for Honesty!

:smthumbup:


----------



## bumpgrind1

First question to the OP, do you feel you've done a good job raising your son's? 2nd question, after that why do you think they need your advice on how to marry well? Are you an expert?
My answers on your behalf are, 1. If you love your children you've done as well as you could raising them. 2. If you spoke well to your children while you raised them and loved them they already posess all the information that they need to select their partners. 
3. Yor are not an professional. Allow them the right to have their own successes as well as their own failures...it's what makes them human. Just be there to celebrate with them when that time comes and support them if that time come's too. Do you not love them either way?


----------



## L.M.COYL

Marriage is learning experience and it is the time spent prior tot eh marriage that is more ,imo. Has he had other relationship that can
train him for the married life.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Scanner,
I have NO idea why you jumped to the conclusion that I would want a 55 year old! Someone who holds an AARP card isn't who I am looking for. I simply said over 40, as I am 39. Then you (mis) quote me in another text of "see even Brennan wants 15 years older" as some kind of justification for you wanting someone 15 years younger. The thing is, I didn't say that.


----------



## Mom6547

The biggest problem with younger guys is that eventually they open their mouths to speak. What comes out is usually a huge turn off. Oh yah. They sound like scanner!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Scanner,
You also mention us "older" women (really, 39 is old?) have baggage. I hear this mentioned by you a bit. I have no idea why you think women have more baggage. 
If the guys on this website are the sampling pool, I would say the baggage for both sexes is 50%. Hell, some of the guys here are board members of Samsonite!


----------



## Deejo

Brennan said:


> Scanner,
> You also mention us "older" women (really, 39 is old?) have baggage. I hear this mentioned by you a bit. I have no idea why you think women have more baggage.
> If the guys on this website are the sampling pool, I would say the baggage for both sexes is 50%. Hell, some of the guys here are board members of Samsonite!


Negative. All of our baggage is the direct result of a female with baggage. We're just the baggage handlers. 

Eventually we meet a new hoochi-mama that causes us to drop the bags we're carrying and start filling, empty, much lighter, new bags, which she will invariably fill.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo,
You are the Chairman of the Board and not Frankie either. LOL.


----------



## Trenton

Those guys who are baggage handlers and keep shoving their unmentionables in other people's baggage because they're too lazy, cheap or poor to buy their own aren't my cup of tea. I'll take a man, his baggage, my baggage and all the good crap inside and we'll share the weight.

Yep. Put that in your invisible bag, Deejo, and tote it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton,

LOUD. SLOW. CLAP.

Women don't have a lock on baggage. Put it to you this way...if my husband and I divorce, we will both have two kids, two homes to run, two cars to pay, two jobs, two tuition bills and two people who failed to keep a 17 year marriage together. Our baggage is 50%. Most of the divorcing or divorced guys here have two or three kids and there situation is very similar to mine with long term marriage, financial responsibilites, mortgage, tuition, etc. They would have just as much baggage as their ex's. 

Women don't have more baggage, men just don't like to admit to having any. They view it as a weakness. It's pretty weak though to take your weakness and heap it on someone else and then fault them for that. Just my two cents.


----------



## Conrad

When men start giving fitness tests, we'll concede they have as much baggage - on average - as women.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Conrad,
I am sorry, I don't understand. Please explain.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> When men start giving fitness tests, we'll concede they have as much baggage - on average - as women.


Pfft. Pfft. Pfft.

Brennan, he's saying that women test men continually and men don't. This thinking is illogical. 

Your points are far better unless men truly don't see their house, kids, sexual history or any other experience, financial burden/blessing as baggage but somehow anything is baggage in reference to women.

Conrad, if men were more willing to take on their own baggage women wouldn't have to provide fitness tests. Seems to me you expect men to be living light and airy with one foot out the door and then you're surprised when the woman keeps testing the crap out of the man to find out why he's living so light and has his foot out the door.


----------



## Mom6547

Brennan said:


> They would have just as much baggage as their ex's.


What I think happens to men AND women, is it is just easier to see what the other person did wrong. I think part of growing up is getting rid of our inner right fighter. Most of us at some point or other have thought that our PoV is RIGHT. But being right is the least important thing in a marriage. 

Taking some of the men on here whose marriages failed. One of the reasons is that the wife did not live up to the "contract" wrt to intimacy and sex. Are they "right?" Were the denied and withheld? I postulate that that does not matter for a hill of beans. I would bet a gazillion dollars (wish I had the money to honor that bet) the ex-wives would come on here with a laundry list of ways on which their ex-husband failed wrt to marital expectations. 

And I would further bet that these ex-wives are also right fighters. SOMEONE has to lead a couple out of the tangle of right fighting into problem solving, learning how to understand each others' expectations, learning to respect other PoV even when they seem dopey...

The biggest difficulty for the right fighters is that if they insist that they were RIGHT and their spouse was WRONG, they are doomed to repeat the same right fighting behavior because NO ONE has the same expectations all the time.





> Women don't have more baggage, men just don't like to admit to having any. They view it as a weakness. It's pretty weak though to take your weakness and heap it on someone else and then fault them for that. Just my two cents.


Not all men. Again, I think this is a function of being a grown up.


----------



## BigBadWolf

Bumpgrind1, your question is making me think on this for a few days.

Here are some of my thoughts.



bumpgrind1 said:


> First question to the OP, do you feel you've done a good job raising your son's?


Absolutely, and that is giving much more credit to my wife as well, who is very selfish towards our children, in preparing them to have the tools and strength to pursue their own desires and happiness.



> 2nd question, after that why do you think they need your advice on how to marry well? Are you an expert?


This thread is precisely this, so much of the dynamics of marriage, even my own marriage that I regard as perfectly successful, regardless my own children, they are not aware of much at all of the private and deep and erotic and dark sexual interactions that flow between their own mother and father to make the marriage successful.

And in so many ways they are simply not going to want to know these things, as my wife nor myself are going to want to share with them EVERYTHING that goes on behind close doors!

So this thread, is more the nuts and bolts of examing practical advice, of looking both inward to self, and outward to potential mate, and all around as marriage itself, moves further from religious ideas, and further from established social ideas, to become a relationship that will have radically different meanings from person to person.

I often wonder, what exactly will marriage mean for this generation coming up, and how many more generations will it even be relevant?





> My answers on your behalf are, 1. If you love your children you've done as well as you could raising them. 2. If you spoke well to your children while you raised them and loved them they already posess all the information that they need to select their partners.


It is not in my core to believe anytyhing in soulmates, or one true loves, or anything of this nature. I am not sure you are saying exactly this, but it seems to hint at this.

Pragmatic, cause and effect, knowing what one wants out of life, providing practical, realistic, honest perspectives, that is what to distil down into realistic advice for my sons concerning marriage.



> 3. Yor are not an professional. Allow them the right to have their own successes as well as their own failures...it's what makes them human. Just be there to celebrate with them when that time comes and support them if that time come's too. Do you not love them either way?


On this, I have nothing but agreement.

I thank you very much for sharing your perspective.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton,
Thank you for clearing that up for me. 

Conrad,
You don't think men test women? Don't we all test each other in one way or another? And food for thought....if men don't test women then explain to me why there are dozens of websites that you can upload the picture of your girlfriend into and it photo advances her age by 10 years, 15 years and 20 years for the sole purpose so you can see if you want to marry her? That's a pretty big test and slightly disgusting too.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> Pfft. Pfft. Pfft.
> 
> Brennan, he's saying that women test men continually and men don't. This thinking is illogical.
> 
> Your points are far better unless men truly don't see their house, kids, sexual history or any other experience, financial burden/blessing as baggage but somehow anything is baggage in reference to women.
> 
> Conrad, if men were more willing to take on their own baggage women wouldn't have to provide fitness tests. Seems to me you expect men to be living light and airy with one foot out the door and then you're surprised when the woman keeps testing the crap out of the man to find out why he's living so light and has his foot out the door.


Methinks she doth protest too much.

I think men spend much of their married lives on defense. The "Nice Guy" strategy is a pathetic attempt to keep the peace and to carve out some space to operate - and to know what to expect.

I have no idea how anyone can compare the spontaneously *****y fitness testing with looking at how a picture may age.

Certainly, worrying about how a woman may age is a bit childish. But, it doesn't pollute the day to day interactions like constantly looking over your shoulder to ask "WTF"


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Conrad,
Again, huh?


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> Methinks she doth protest too much.
> 
> I think men spend much of their married lives on defense. The "Nice Guy" strategy is a pathetic attempt to keep the peace and to carve out some space to operate - and to know what to expect.
> 
> I have no idea how anyone can compare the spontaneously *****y fitness testing with looking at how a picture may age.
> 
> Certainly, worrying about how a woman may age is a bit childish. But, it doesn't pollute the day to day interactions like constantly looking over your shoulder to ask "WTF"


Methinks thee lady doth protest with reason my Lord! Verily, it is so!

Are you telling me the best offense is a good defense? This is chosen just as nagging and bickering is chosen over beating a man over the head with a golf club.

In order for all things to be balanced which they indeed are (even in their unfairness or fairness) relations between women and men will be so. 

Claim to have baggage. Claim to carry baggage. It doesn't much matter. If two individuals of opposite sex who are attracted to each other (of the same, equal or greater than age) can't accept one another then there will be undeniable friction. Either way, it's all the same. It's about balance.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Conrad,
Then explain to me in your mind what a woman's "fitness" test is? 

And who looks over their shoulder to say "wtf"? What am I not understanding here? Men?


----------



## Conrad

Brennan said:


> Conrad,
> Then explain to me in your mind what a woman's "fitness" test is?
> 
> And who looks over their shoulder to say "wtf"? What am I not understanding here? Men?


Brennan,

Do you think "nice guys" are born or are they created?

I think it's a bit of both.

So many times, you'll see some guy walking with a scowling gal with that helpless look on his face.

Wouldn't it make sense that the more emotional of us have the most baggage?

Also, how about those of us with the most to lose?


----------



## Deejo

Suggest moving this line of questioning here. Conrad has a thread about this very subject.


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> Suggest moving this line of questioning here. Conrad has a thread about this very subject.


Thanks


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Conrad,

Not sure about nice guys. 
Perhaps those with more emotion have more baggage. I would suggest that nobody comes out of a long term marriage, man or woman non-emotional.
I was trying to point out that we ALL have baggage and that it is about 50% on each side. Scanner and Deejo implied that men don't have baggage. I guess admitting to having baggage is seen as a weakness by men?
I like my baggage, it is a part of who I am and I own it.


----------



## boxer

This is incredibly wise advice. I read it all and hope that more men would take these words to heart. I wish I had more to add, but that'll have to do.


----------



## Ello1012

Don't have an affair... treat your woman kind and curtiously. Be good to your wife. No one is perfect no one's marriage is perfect, rwealize that for every falw their is a good and see how life and marriage just balances.


----------

