Kevin's Watch

It's a more complicated matter than that... many animals in nature are "polygamous" but not following polyandry. Predators wandering in packs - especially the large ones - usually have a male and a harem of females, but no female has a harem of males.

Sure, but if that male is overthrown they will have a new husband. There's no reason that we can't substitute "A better gene provider comes along" for "overthrown."

(And what about matriarchal predators like African Wild Dogs? There the dominant female chooses the best male to breed with. If there's a better male next time, she chooses him. *shrug*)

--A

I'm not saying there are no matriarchal hierarchies, I'm just saying that according to those scientists, humankind has a patriarchal, polygamous natural hierarchy If you don't like it, take it out on the scientists who reported it or on Mother Nature

We're straying, by the way... back to business

I agree that a bad marriage where there is abuse is better split apart. Even in my case, it was for the best. For the first time in my life I was free to find myself. I ran from my emotionally abusive mother and distant father to a 19 year old boy that swore undying devotion to me... for a year and a half before I caved. Do I regret any of it? No. He is and was sweet, intelligent, etc. I had 3 awesome kids. I would never take any of it back and change it. Unfortunately, he is such a sad person and does not seem to be able to find the courage to help himself. I was willing to stay beside him because I swore I would. He left not to hurt us anymore and it was the best thing he could have ever done. I wish he would be more involved with the kids, but I accept that I cannot change that. Also, he prefers a polygamous lifestyle that also allows him to be with men as well as women. Ok, I am not into that. It's not ok with me, but I have no problem with other people doing that. I have friends that are gay, polygamous, monogamous, straight. It is not my place to judge them or thier lifestyle. Each person has to do what thier heart tells them is right for them. For me a monogamous relationship with a best friend that you can share your heart with and be complete partners is what is right for me. I do beleive that is possible.

As for my parents, we found out in the past few years that my mom had early onset Alzhiemers as early as when I was 12 or 13 which is when the emotional abuse really started. The earlier stuff was simply the acts of a woman that had no clue how to be a mom for lack of example (her mom had early onset as well). When Alex (now 11) was almost 2 my dad had a near death experience and changed his prioroties. He is no longer distant and is a very loving and devoted man. People do change. For me, just knowing that my mom had a real reason why she was abusive makes all the difference in the world. Dad knows now that she was abusive and his devotion to my mom warms my heart. If a man like him is my father then I know there is someone like that out there for me.

Oh! My dad aso watches my kids for me as well as my mom (who is like a big 13 year old). Yesterday he helped Alex with her candy chemistry set to make lollipops and taught her about crystallization, reading a cndy thermometer, etc and they both loved every minute of it. Also, when he took Nick to church with them in the morning (mom has to go everyday or she has a temper tanutrum lol) and my dad asked him what song they were supposed to turn to in the book and Nick (just turned 5) looked at the list on the wall and said 520. Then he opened the book, overshot the right song and turned back and opened to the correct song!! My dad was amazed! He went on and on about it last night. So cool! Sorry... this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic. lol

Except that, even in bad circumstances, your family has found ways to keep your lil' part of this world from going to hell - which I think is pretty instructive.

duchess of malfi wrote:I know most people would disagree with me, but divorce can be a blessing. My parents had a miserable marriage, with my mother always laying down horrible emotional abuse and manaipulation on my father. They never got divorced, as they grew up in a conservative part of the South, in a time when divorce just didn't happen.

I think we would have all been a lot better off if they had split up, as long as my father had gotten custody of us.

How can living in a house filled with violence and daily screaming and abuse be better for children than a divorce between their parents (as long as they are not abused anymore in the aftermath).

My mother (who was paranoid and crazy) always accused my father of cheating on her. She would hit him, scream at him, punch him, break furniture by hitting him with chairs and whatever - I think it is why I have issues with jealous women to this day. He never did - it was all in her mind.

My sisters and I have discussed it, and we actually wish the poor man had cheated on her. At least that way he could have had some gentleness and pleasure - and maybe even a bit of love - in his life. As it was, he got the abuse fior having supposedly done it, but none of the fun.

And - if he had - I see no sin it under the circumstances (providing his partner would have been free of encumbrances). He spent his life being abused, and stuck around taking care of that crazy violent manipulative woman until the day she died. He would have had a lot better life if he had institutionalized her, but he did his duty and followed his vows as he felt he had to do. If he got a bit of gentleness on the side -would that have really been wrong???

Wow! Were our mothers related? My mom was the same way. Eventually I came to the conclusion that if the man did see someone else and had a few brief interludes of happiness and peace, well, good for him.

She outlasted him. He found solace with Jim Beam and literally drank himself to death. My father was a kind, gentle man and I miss him terribly. I look at the pictures of my new granddaughter and think that her "Poppy" would have thought she was the most beautiful thing ever (well, she is but I'm biased). I know my mother didn't sit on my dads lap and pour liquor down his throat but I blame her just the same.

So now I'm sitting here getting really blue and tearing up and I can't stand weepy women so that's all I'm gonna say.

Honor is all well and good if we're talking about a level playing field, which we're not. A man can honor his commitments, be a good husband, a good father, and a good provider, but all that goes flying out the window at the divorce and custody hearings unless the mother is a drug addict or literally certifiably insane.

Cail wrote:Honor is all well and good if we're talking about a level playing field, which we're not. A man can honor his commitments, be a good husband, a good father, and a good provider, but all that goes flying out the window at the divorce and custody hearings unless the mother is a drug addict or literally certifiably insane.

Sadly, this is very true. It is a very unfair world. I have a single dad friend that is wonderful with his kids, but he cannot get primary custody of his kids despite the fact that his ex is not only bipolar, but uncontrolled and tried to kidnap the kids twice after SHE left them with him! It totally bites.

Actually Cail, a member of my family's wife was a drug addict, and when he and she divorced, she got custody. Sad.

onewyteduck wrote: So now I'm sitting here getting really blue and tearing up and I can't stand weepy women so that's all I'm gonna say.

nonsense, don't be silly Duck...weeping is a release. good for you. particularly good for grief. dudelette, you've a right to be weepy over this.



member Holly Hunter in Broadcast News!!! good cry once a day!!

Joni Mitchell wrote:...laughing and cryin, you know its the same release...

My point exactly. The courts are hopelessly biased in favor of the wife and mother. Unless you are very lucky, have an excellent lawyer, or have a completely fruity wife, the husband/father loses everything in a divorce.

Now, I'm not going to excuse anyone's behavior, but if you know how divorce/custody goes, it's a no-brainer that you're not going to put yourself through that meat grinder.

Well, not everyone has to have a rough divorce. If you remember to treat one another with civility then things can go fine. Granted, many divorces are happening because there is already a lack of civility. Mine went fine and yes, I have custody of the kids, but when he left I tried to convince him to get an apartment near us so he could see the kids as much as he wanted. I was thinking more about the kids than myself. I didn't want them to have to lose thier dad. Well, he ran away. Nick knows he's this daddy person, but he doesn't know him. The girls know him, but don't see him harldy at all. In the last 2 years they have seen him once. Before that for a year he lived about 45 minutes away and saw them 5 times. Before that, they hadn't seen him for 2 years. I would like him to call her. Alex has her own firefly cell phone so he doesn't have to talk to me if he doesn't want to (he is afraid I will be mad at him... good grief... I only get upset when Alex is hurt from not hearing from him). It is interesting. His birthday comes and goes... I tell them when his birthday is... and fathers day comes and goes and they don't even bother to call him anymore. Kinda sad. Ah well, you reap what you sow.

Not in Maryland.

The father is required by law to pay "X" amount of child support to the mother, in which "X" is determined by the number of children and by the father's salary. There are no adjustments to this based upon the mother's salary.

So hypothetically speaking, if the father made $50,000/yr and the mother made $100,000/yr and the mother won custody, her salary never comes into the picture. Not only that, it's not possible to come to an agreement with your spouse about child support payments. You will pay at least the state minimum, more if she's got a sharp lawyer. Last I looked at it for me was about 6 years ago, and it was 60% of my salary. At that time, I couldn't afford to have a place to live and pay child support. Oh, and that didn't include any alimony either.

So basically, if you can handle losing your kids and radically reducing your standard of living (not to mention losing all your friends and most of your stuff), you too can have a divorce in Maryland.

I'm sorry your divorce has been so rough on you. Here in Texas it isnt 60%... it was in Florida where we first seperated. Also here the mom's salary does come into view. My ex owes over 57,000. We have only survived because his grandmother has helped us. As a single mom of 3, I have found it incredibly hard to find someone to give me a job. Also, I had dropped out of college at my Junior year and had only worked in daycare earing $5 a hr. I have not been able to survive without the charity of his grandmother. Even now with this job (which is the best paying I've ever had at $14.56 an hr), I can barely survive. Once the child support starts back up again we will be ok. I can't afford the daycare. It is vey wrong for it to work where if the mom is earing twice as much as the dad for it be that way. If I earned twice as much as him, I would be fine and let him reduce the amount. Also, if my insurance turns out to be the better plan, I will get the kids on mine. So far the kids are on medicaid because any of his insurances have copays I can't afford. I know someone that sometimes has to sleep in his car because he willingly pays the support he owes before anything else. I respect him for that. It isn't easy. I totally understand where you are coming from.

duchess of malfi wrote:I think openess and honesty is a key here.

I couldn't agree more.

I think monogomy is a result of trust, not a cause of trust.

Marriage doesn't start out that way, but when it matures to the point where there is mutual dependence -- where you, more literally than you ever imagined possible - share your lives -- you realize how much it is depends on trust -- utter trust.

I don't think that that kind of trust can tolerate anything but a monogomous relationship. As soon as you add a third, even with clear consent and the best of intentions, it starts turning into playing sides. There are three relationships instead of one relationship. Conflicts are inevitable. It is impossible to trust you're partners so deeply. Only people who don't need very much from their spouse can be happy in that kind of arrangement, I feel. (Or the odd character in a Heinlein novel.)

So in conclusion: trust is the key; monogomy follows.

This is completely in line with the nature vs society issue. The complexities of society are what drive the interdependence of a married couple. Wild animals don't share finances, for example. Social constructs in a myriad of areas cause marriage to be much more complex.

SoulQuest1970 wrote:I'm sorry your divorce has been so rough on you.

SQ...if you're speaking to Cail...he's not divorced.

Wayfriend wrote:. I think monogomy is a result of trust, not a cause of trust.

Marriage doesn't start out that way, but when it matures to the point where there is mutual dependence -- where you, more literally than you ever imagined possible - share your lives -- you realize how much it is depends on trust -- utter trust.

I don't think that that kind of trust can tolerate anything but a monogomous relationship. As soon as you add a third, even with clear consent and the best of intentions, it starts turning into playing sides. There are three relationships instead of one relationship. Conflicts are inevitable. It is impossible to trust you're partners so deeply. Only people who don't need very much from their spouse can be happy in that kind of arrangement, I feel. (Or the odd character in a Heinlein novel.)

So in conclusion: trust is the key; monogomy follows.

Way...i see your postition. i hate like hell to be the fly in this ointment but as i stated earlier...and attempting not to get tooooo detailed...i don't agree that monogomy ALWAYS follows trust. in fact, it was only after i was monogomous for a certain lengthy period that i began to understand how LITTLE my husbands sexual fidelity matters to me. (well, we all KNOW i'm weird)

of course...he nearly died. that can completely change how a relationship is viewed. i'm only speaking from my own experience but the trust i experience with my mate does not stem in any way from his sexual conduct in our relationship. i had to learn to trust that he wanted to live. it superceded all other considerations, including sexual fidelity.

i'm not saying that monogomy never follows trust, just not ALWAYS. i don't think it's necessarily a PRODUCT of trust in a relationship.
once again, disclaimer applies, not carved in granite.

Lucimay wrote:

onewyteduck wrote: So now I'm sitting here getting really blue and tearing up and I can't stand weepy women so that's all I'm gonna say.

nonsense, don't be silly Duck...weeping is a release. good for you. particularly good for grief. dudelette, you've a right to be weepy over this.



member Holly Hunter in Broadcast News!!! good cry once a day!!

Joni Mitchell wrote:...laughing and cryin, you know its the same release...

I know. I just can't help it!

Cail wrote:Honor is all well and good if we're talking about a level playing field, which we're not. A man can honor his commitments, be a good husband, a good father, and a good provider, but all that goes flying out the window at the divorce and custody hearings unless the mother is a drug addict or literally certifiably insane.

Honor is not predicated by the actions of others - I thought I got that in there!

(And I'm saying this as living proof that mental, legal, or drug problems aren't enough to keep the man fighting them from going into one helluva lotta debt to fight the good fight.)

If your next post can also be summed up with the phrase, "But it's not fair!" - don't bother. Honor isn't predicated on fair treatment, any more than any individual situation in a relationship is. Sometimes, you've just got to suck it up. (Funny how I get all Cail-like in the philosophy boards, innit?)

No question at all Pliss (and it isn't fair!). That is the definition of honor.

However, the choice boils down to this; honor the marriage to the letter, no matter how miserable it makes you ('cause part of that honor is the, "till death do us part" thing), or honor yourself and your happiness.

Well, it doesn't always work out so well: When my Dad was visiting me in Post Op (for a stress-related condition that is usually fround in 50+ year old car salesmen) he said, "Son, 'Till death do you part doesn't mean 'Till the bitch up and kills you."

I decided to start "honoring my happiness," at that point, I guess.