auto-da-fe

:notworthy

in a hijacked discussion on tangents unknown, the voice of experience puts the train back on track.

the choice, and the consequences that follow, are of course, Anna's alone.

yguy

That's a lie. Plenty of men have shown themselves trustworthy in this regard, but they are never heard of, not being deemed noteworthy by the mainstream media. One example is former Congressman Bob Dornan, who is villified by many precisely BECAUSE he did it right, and isn't shy about saying it - although none will ever admit that's the reason.

If they did, then I guess there was more lust than commitment, wasn't there?

It's only assinine if one has the idea that romantic love is a good foundation for a marriage.

You might as well set out on a journey across the ocean thinking that the ship is eventually going to sink, but that you're going to have one hell of a party until then.

brighid

You may find his statement to be inaccurate, but that does not mean it is a lie. Many men, do indeed prove to be trustworthy but this is proven over time. I gathered that dangin meant that these things can't be counted on simply because one is in a "traditional" family. Spouses do leave, others die and divorce permeates our society. One CANNOT count on the future to be as one wishes it to be, and I suppose in this sense "no one can be trusted." People change and even initially good marriages can end. It is important to have these things in mind in order to be prepared for those worst case scenarios. I think that advice is prudent given the situation we are discussing. There are no guarantees in life, except perhaps death and taxes.

Brighid

dangin

Yeah, damn taxes. Well said Brighid. As this ressurected thread goes on again, I just wonder why it makes yguy so angry? What is it about this that threatens people?

brighid

Yes, damned taxes ... unless of course if you are rich with all the new tax breaks for the wealthy! Thank you for the compliment.

I cannot presume to know what is in his mind, but I think change threatens many people. Why, I am not exactly sure. Perhaps change makes them confront the strongly held notions they hold about certain things and when change doesn't seems to positively defy the categorical boxes people put others into that is uncomfortable.

I think some men (not necessarily yguy) get very angry about women being independent from men because they desire to control women. Perhaps it feels emasculating to see women thriving without the aide of a man to support and protect her. I know many men have felt threatened by independence and abilities. If you feel that each gender has specifically defined roles you will likely be uncomfortable with people who do not fit into the norm. However, I am not a psychologist and this is merely my personal opinion based on my own experience.

I personally feel that the desire to maintain strict gender roles according to "tradition" is actually the dysfunctional part of the equation.

Brighid

yguy

Which is what long engagements are for.

But even if the spouse dies in a good marriage, the remaining spouse still has the love of what was good in the other. In a bad marriage, all that is left is the hatred of what was rotten in the other and/or the craving for the other's approval.

I'm not sure that a marriage can be said to have ever been good if it falls apart, since by definition it is a lifetime commitment.

I would agree in the sense that one shouldn't get married with the idea that another person can make one's life complete. Ideally, both people should be emotionally and financially independent going into it; but once a child is conceived, a responsible parent will do everything within reason to keep the marriage together, it seems to me.

auto-da-fe

i would agree with some of what yguy is saying. a responsible parent is going to work harder at a failing marriage than a married couple with no children. at least any parent worth their salt is going to.

why does it have to be that change would threaten? is it possible some people don't want to see a change in the family values of the majority of americans, not because he/she feels threatened, but just because he/she believes that the traditional family model is best. I know I am not the only person in the world who thinks this way, and I would really like to see some people agreeing with me, but I believe that the children grow up responsible when they have responsible parents. and part of a parents resoponsibility (IMO) is to the other parent as well, not just to the child. some of the responsibilities to the other parent include the obvious such as sharing discipline, changing diapers, etc., but I believe that a part of one parents responsibility to another parent is to work hard for their (the parents) relationship and not give up every time the going gets hard (i see this all too often). parenting isn't easy, and marriage isn't easy. when you combine the 2 it can sometimes even seem impossible. but with hard work and luck it can also be the single most rewarding aspect of your entire life. not just the parenting can be rewarding either, but the marriage can as well.

yguy

Ma'am, I've read enough of your posts to know you're too smart to be resorting to a dried-up old cliché like this one. On this very board we have an apologist for pedophilia using essentially the same argument. Lots of Russians felt threatened by the change in 1917, and history shows their fears hardly scratched the surface of the reality they portended.

Therefore, feeling threatened by change is not necessarily the sign of a desire to hold on to an illegitimate degree of power - unless the power to live and raise a family in a decent environment is somehow illegitimate.

If maintaining tradition for its own sake were the focus, I would agree. So would Christ. What you're forgetting, though, is that men and women are designed to relate to each other within certain boundaries. For instance, you would probably agree that a guy whose idea of relating to women is screwing them and leaving them barefoot and pregnant would fall outside of those boundaries; so what we need to do as a society is come to some agreement about what constitutes acceptable relationships between men and women.

dangin

Absolute rubbish. Viva la difference.

Does your definition of acceptable include gay marriage, gay parents, mulim parents, buddhist parents, polygamous families, mentally disabled parents, dominant female submissive male families, etc. etc.?

The spectrum of "acceptable" families should be defined as families that love, support, and nurture each other. That work for the best possible lives for each other based upon the realities of their situation,

The spectrum of "unacceptable" families are narrow minded, abusive, neglectful, and bitter people who have personal baggage, or unresolved issues of their own that makes them work in a counter productive fashion towards other members of their family.

male - female relationships do not automatically have anything to do with it.

yguy

How come you left out incestuous, pedophilic and interspecies marriage? What are you, some kind of bigot?

Until loving, supporting and nurturing gets to be too much hassle, right?

The chief reality being, evidently, that whatever makes me feel good is good. I mean, how could anyone possibly be a good parent without having at least two orgasms a day, right?