Kevin's Watch

That's my point. Honor only goes so far. There comes a point when you have to look out for number one.

Well...
Let me just say that the English language does not have words to describe the pain of leaving my children. The grief and the guilt are beyond the telling. After nearly two years, it's still very much with me, although it's gotten better. Some of you may remember what I was like when I moved out. And this is with me living 1.5 miles from them, still seeing them for hours every day, and having a great relationship with my ex. All this, and the pain are only bearable when I am completely distracted from it all.

There really wasn't any choice, and if I had it to do over I would. My wife and I could not be happy together, and that ruins everything about life. And I know she is better able to be the one they actually live with. So I left, cried, and spent a couple nights in the hospital because of the physical toll it all took on me. And my 7yo still cries and tries to understand, and I can't type this post without tears in my eyes.

And the point? Not real sure. I don't have advice for people like Cail. It's not possible to recommend it to anyone, and yet sometimes it must be done. I guess my point is, if you're going through it, or will be, I'm an ear for you.

Ah, Fist....

Plissken wrote: 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'm absolutely certain your dad knows my dad!! (btw, your dad is a wise man.)

back 35 years ago my dad got custody of me only after my mother's mom testified against her. my birth mother was a drug addict who was in and out of state mental hospitals. and the courts still wanted to give me to her. sadly little seems to have changed in the courts.

Lucimay wrote:

Plissken wrote: 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'm absolutely certain your dad knows my dad!! (btw, your dad is a wise man.)

There is no way I'm telling him he's wise. Heh.

You know, at some point you do have to look out for yourself. At the time when I became interested in another man and obtained permission to see him, my husband had not had sex with me for about two years. As far as I was conerned, he had abdicated his position as my husband through neglect, no matter what that little piece of paper in my desk drawer said.

This wasn't because my husband was a bad person trying to torture me. It wasn't because he was pissed off at me and withholding sex. It wasn't because he was physically unable to have sex. He simply had no interest in having sex (with anyone).

Supposedly this is something that happens to some people (male and female). In his case I think there is some possible genetic/biochemical cause (his full sister's husband left her because she had no interest in sex; his full brother's wife had told me he has withheld sex from her for years at a time as well).

At what point can someone still be considered a spouse in cases like this? At what point after being subjected to years of emotional and/or physical neglect can someone be free? Is it really fair for someone to have to submit to "You cannot have sex with me - and you cannot have sex with anyone else either!!" and "I am so busy with work and hobbies and the kids that I have no time or energy to go out with or be with you -- but you cannot go out with anyone else, either!!!!" when that means years???

That said, and apparently returning to topic, I must offer up my support for Duchess' view. (I don't think that Barad was being literal btw Duchess, although I may be wrong. )

Wait, literal about what?

I don't need the government or some church to legitimise my relationship. That contract or agreement that Cail mentions can be just as valid and binding when made by two people without any third party intervention.

Agreed. Your marriage is your business, it's God's business, and no one else's. Period. "God needs no contract." is my bumper sticker!

At what point can someone still be considered a spouse in cases like this? At what point after being subjected to years of emotional and/or physical neglect can someone be free? Is it really fair for someone to have to submit to "You cannot have sex with me - and you cannot have sex with anyone else either!!" and "I am so busy with work and hobbies and the kids that I have no time or energy to go out with or be with you -- but you cannot go out with anyone else, either!!!!" when that means years???

Oh, my poor dear. I have a particular empathy for this situation, as my mother was put through it for six long years, and I for one. (I took my lesson from her and got out.) Legal issues aside (and honestly this is why I will never marry in the traditional sense, I feel the court has no right to make judgements about my life, relationships or parenting), when your partner ceases to be your partner, they are no longer your spouse. Anyone who tells you, "you made a commitment, now you have to stick with it" has already failed to understand. A commitment such as this requires two, and you cannot be expected to carry both ends. At that point the only question should be, "do I love him/her enough to keep trying with them", in other words, if he/she opened her eyes immediately and tried to make it work, can I forgive them and try to rebuild what was lost? In my case, the answer was forgone. No, I did not love her enough to go through all that again. Not that my integrity was to be questioned, but that she had already decided that it was preferable to live in hate with me, then start over and try to fix anything.

Yikes, sorry bout the rant folks.

-B

Some great posts folks.

I gotta agree that in the end, your happiness, (which is necessary for both mental and physical health), must come first for your own sake, as well as everybody else's.

--A

Baradakas wrote:"God needs no contract."

Only the ocassional Covenant

Baradakas wrote:Anyone who tells you, "you made a commitment, now you have to stick with it" has already failed to understand

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children

Baradakas wrote:Oh, my poor dear. I have a particular empathy for this situation, as my mother was put through it for six long years, and I for one. (I took my lesson from her and got out.) Legal issues aside (and honestly this is why I will never marry in the traditional sense, I feel the court has no right to make judgements about my life, relationships or parenting), when your partner ceases to be your partner, they are no longer your spouse. Anyone who tells you, "you made a commitment, now you have to stick with it" has already failed to understand. A commitment such as this requires two, and you cannot be expected to carry both ends. At that point the only question should be, "do I love him/her enough to keep trying with them", in other words, if he/she opened her eyes immediately and tried to make it work, can I forgive them and try to rebuild what was lost? In my case, the answer was forgone. No, I did not love her enough to go through all that again. Not that my integrity was to be questioned, but that she had already decided that it was preferable to live in hate with me, then start over and try to fix anything.

Wow, yeah that's the issue in a nutshell. When one partner just stops putting any effort into anything, the other one's screwed, and not in the good way.

Agreed, and excellent post Barad.

(Literal about going to hell, as in the place where bad people go, as opposed to merely screwed up and getting worse. )

--A

Prebe wrote:

Baradakas wrote:Anyone who tells you, "you made a commitment, now you have to stick with it" has already failed to understand

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children

But that's the thing - staying in the marriage isn't always the best thing for the children. My grandfather used to beat my grangmother, and once stuck her head in the coal-range while the fire was actually burning. It wasn't good for my mother or her brothers and sisters for my grandmother to "stick it out". My father was a chronic dope smoker who slept with school girls. It wasn't in my best interest for my mother to stay in the relationship. I don't deny that a child benefits from having both male and female role models, but sometimes having them both living under the same roof just doesn't work.

As for society going to hell, I'm afraid I can't fully agree with everything you have said.

Yes, some teenage girls dress like sluts, but a lot don't, and besides, isn't what they wear controlled far more by their parents, rather than Gwen Stefani, powerful though she is? I'm not saying that the media isn't to blame, but blaming the government or the media is often a way of abdicating responsibility, or so I've found. I also notice you don't mention male celebrities teaching young men to treat women like "bitches" and "hoes" (sp?). Isn't it just as important for men to respect women as it is for women to act in a way worthy of respect?

As for the pedophile comment, I had to restrain myself with that one. Men molest children because they are sick, not because children dress provocatively. And there have always been men who molest children - in my great grandfathers day the family kept it a secret and made sure that he was never alone with young children again, but these days he would be far more likely to be arrested and charged.

Sorry for the rant, just a few thoughts.

Wow.

First up, good thread.

Being a young teenager myself (fourteen), I do notice the constant bombardment from outlets - mainly shops and the media. However, they aren’t the main problem - a lot of it has to do with the parents.

Think about it. If kids as young as twelve are walking around with shirts saying “Do Me” (as was mentioned earlier in the thread), they must be getting the money from somewhere. It is highly unlikely they would have a job, so naturally one would assume that it is the parents who are letting their children wear the clothes.

Fix the parents, and you may well be on the way to fixing the children.

(Then again, there is always the option of banning innuendo on TV. But that is a bit drastic. )

Good posts Vs and Spring. Certainly agree with you both.

The parents are by far the primary arbiters of the acceptable. Media may make children want to dress/behave/whatever like that, but it's parents who allow or disallow it.

And an equally valid point about male "role model" celebraties Vs, not to mention my total agreement that sometimes seperation/divorce/whatever is what's best for the children.

--A

*decides to elaborate a tad*

Spring wrote:Being a young teenager myself (fourteen), I do notice the constant bombardment from outlets - mainly shops and the media. However, they aren’t the main problem - a lot of it has to do with the parents.

Think about it. If kids as young as twelve are walking around with shirts saying “Do Me” (as was mentioned earlier in the thread), they must be getting the money from somewhere. It is highly unlikely they would have a job, so naturally one would assume that it is the parents who are letting their children wear the clothes.

Slutty behavior and apparell is not very appealing to me (or many people I know); I certainly wouldn't want to get to know a girl who, at first glance, is ten inches closer to me than I originally guessed because of all the make-up piled on.

And while I don't know many my age who are sexually active, I know a few, and many of them regret losing their virginity at such an early age.

C'mon Spring, if a sexy girl with lots of make-up started to flirt with you and was making passes, you would be interested

This might sound really redundant but last time i checked sex is just about the best way to pass time while on this planet. Why arbitrarilly decide that you have to wait until you are of a certain age to enjoy the experience? As long as it's consensual and safe I think you just have to let kids come to their own conclusions.

And any decent parent will hold far greater sway over their kid than Gwen whatsherface IMO.

While I certainly agree with that last, assuming that the parents make the effort, the problem with the first is at least twofold.

First, we're unable to assure that it is either, let alone both, and secondly, it would require the "rewiring" of probably several generations.

Of course, my usual stance on compulsory reversible sterilisation at puberty would help, but it's probably not enough on its own.

--A

Marvin The Magnificent wrote:This might sound really redundant but last time i checked sex is just about the best way to pass time while on this planet. Why arbitrarilly decide that you have to wait until you are of a certain age to enjoy the experience? As long as it's consensual and safe I think you just have to let kids come to their own conclusions.

Consensual and Safe are the two biggest factors in the "arbitrary" age limit. Young bodies are unprepared to cope with sex, just as young minds are unprepared for the emotions that come along with it.

Think about it: If you're still capable of being moved to tears at the loss of a favorite toy, or being placed on restriction, you just might not have lived long enough for the emotional baggage that comes along with having sex.