Anyone know a good divorce lawyer?

[Anonymous]

CA,

Absoutely agree with your post and it’s great that you and your husband have a system that works. The system i outlined works for the wife and me. I’d have no problems tinkering on cars with you but our systems would be incompatible for a relationship (not that it was every headed there……:)

Sure im old fashioned, she is too, and that is what works for us. Im not at all bitter or intolerant of other people’s arrangments unless they infringe on mine. I’ll withdraw the ‘free rent’ comment. You are correct, it isn’t exactly free, and yes, i’ve taken care of the kids……it isnt nearly as much work as the wife makes it out to be…..but regardless of that it is a responsibility much more worthy of compensation than any salaried job ive ever held.

Front loaded vs. back loaded is a good way to look at it. You’re spot in with that one. Ive never denied that women deserve their due….what ends up undermining that deserved due are the few women who needlessly whine about entitlement with unreasonable expectations and blame their ex for anything which ails them.

It sorta comes down to a good attitude (including seeing it from the other person’s point of view) and personal repsonsibility. Both men and women i know who have had productive marriages, and reasonable divorces seem to have a good helping of both.

Jasper

P.S. To you and the other sensible women out there….it is a breath fresh air to read the words from a reasonable and mature standpoint. Any chance you are Marion’s alter ego <:)

[Anonymous]

CA,

Absoutely agree with your post and it’s great that you and your husband have a system that works. The system i outlined works for the wife and me. I’d have no problems tinkering on cars with you but our systems would be incompatible for a relationship (not that it was every headed there……:)

Sure im old fashioned, she is too, and that is what works for us. Im not at all bitter or intolerant of other people’s arrangments unless they infringe on mine. I’ll withdraw the ‘free rent’ comment. You are correct, it isn’t exactly free, and yes, i’ve taken care of the kids……it isnt nearly as much work as the wife makes it out to be…..but regardless of that it is a responsibility much more worthy of compensation than any salaried job ive ever held.

Front loaded vs. back loaded is a good way to look at it. You’re spot in with that one. Ive never denied that women deserve their due….what ends up undermining that deserved due are the few women who needlessly whine about entitlement with unreasonable expectations and blame their ex for anything which ails them.

It sorta comes down to a good attitude (including seeing it from the other person’s point of view) and personal repsonsibility. Both men and women i know who have had productive marriages, and reasonable divorces seem to have a good helping of both.

Jasper

P.S. To you and the other sensible women out there….it is a breath fresh air to read the words from a reasonable and mature standpoint. Any chance you are Marion’s alter ego <:)

[jpinpb]

Stradivarius – I so agree. If your spouse has an interest, a hobby, why would you want to stop that person from doing that if it makes that person happy? Wouldn’t you want the person you’re with to be happy?

I never understood that. I encourage my husband to do the things he enjoys, surf, tinker/work on cars, ride his enduro, etc. At the same time, he would never tell me not to go skate at the beach.

Same situation. I dated someone who didn’t want me skating and the beach. I suspect he was insecure and didn’t want guys checking me out. It was sad. I had absolutely no interest in that whatsoever, in fact, loved when no one was there. Skate a lot faster.

I have a girlfriend that doesn’t want her guy to check out girls. I don’t have a problem if they look. I look too and I’m not a guy. I mean, they’re not gay, can you blame them for looking?

There needs to be trust in a relationship, among many other things.

[jpinpb]

Stradivarius – I so agree. If your spouse has an interest, a hobby, why would you want to stop that person from doing that if it makes that person happy? Wouldn’t you want the person you’re with to be happy?

I never understood that. I encourage my husband to do the things he enjoys, surf, tinker/work on cars, ride his enduro, etc. At the same time, he would never tell me not to go skate at the beach.

Same situation. I dated someone who didn’t want me skating and the beach. I suspect he was insecure and didn’t want guys checking me out. It was sad. I had absolutely no interest in that whatsoever, in fact, loved when no one was there. Skate a lot faster.

I have a girlfriend that doesn’t want her guy to check out girls. I don’t have a problem if they look. I look too and I’m not a guy. I mean, they’re not gay, can you blame them for looking?

There needs to be trust in a relationship, among many other things.

[jpinpb]

Stradivarius – I so agree. If your spouse has an interest, a hobby, why would you want to stop that person from doing that if it makes that person happy? Wouldn’t you want the person you’re with to be happy?

I never understood that. I encourage my husband to do the things he enjoys, surf, tinker/work on cars, ride his enduro, etc. At the same time, he would never tell me not to go skate at the beach.

Same situation. I dated someone who didn’t want me skating and the beach. I suspect he was insecure and didn’t want guys checking me out. It was sad. I had absolutely no interest in that whatsoever, in fact, loved when no one was there. Skate a lot faster.

I have a girlfriend that doesn’t want her guy to check out girls. I don’t have a problem if they look. I look too and I’m not a guy. I mean, they’re not gay, can you blame them for looking?

There needs to be trust in a relationship, among many other things.

[jpinpb]

Stradivarius – I so agree. If your spouse has an interest, a hobby, why would you want to stop that person from doing that if it makes that person happy? Wouldn’t you want the person you’re with to be happy?

I never understood that. I encourage my husband to do the things he enjoys, surf, tinker/work on cars, ride his enduro, etc. At the same time, he would never tell me not to go skate at the beach.

Same situation. I dated someone who didn’t want me skating and the beach. I suspect he was insecure and didn’t want guys checking me out. It was sad. I had absolutely no interest in that whatsoever, in fact, loved when no one was there. Skate a lot faster.

I have a girlfriend that doesn’t want her guy to check out girls. I don’t have a problem if they look. I look too and I’m not a guy. I mean, they’re not gay, can you blame them for looking?

There needs to be trust in a relationship, among many other things.

[jpinpb]

Stradivarius – I so agree. If your spouse has an interest, a hobby, why would you want to stop that person from doing that if it makes that person happy? Wouldn’t you want the person you’re with to be happy?

I never understood that. I encourage my husband to do the things he enjoys, surf, tinker/work on cars, ride his enduro, etc. At the same time, he would never tell me not to go skate at the beach.

Same situation. I dated someone who didn’t want me skating and the beach. I suspect he was insecure and didn’t want guys checking me out. It was sad. I had absolutely no interest in that whatsoever, in fact, loved when no one was there. Skate a lot faster.

I have a girlfriend that doesn’t want her guy to check out girls. I don’t have a problem if they look. I look too and I’m not a guy. I mean, they’re not gay, can you blame them for looking?

There needs to be trust in a relationship, among many other things.

[scaredyclassic]

there was an article in a recent men’s magazine i think DETAILS about a yuppie trend among men to get women to carry their embryos to term and to riase the kids as single dads, kinda like single women do.

the thrust of the article was, if you ahve the cash and you want kids, doing it with a similar professional woman was way too much fo a pain and it would be easier and probably cheaper to just do the whole thing yerself. no risk of payments, no dealing with an upset wife, you get to call the shots, you end up getting laid more, and plus you of course have the kids as a potential attractor for further women (although i dont remember the article saying that).

I think there is a lot to be said for that, that if money isn’t an issue, and you can afford NOT to have a stay-at-home wife why would you personally want potential bickering over the valuation of “wifely” (i mean that int he sense of traditioanlly wifely duties, the duties at home that are unpaid but obviously of value), just pay the market rate and be doe with it. Assuming you really want kids.

i think most guys don’t actually want kids at the time the woman wants kid. this goes back to the “front-loading” issue, where the woman has athe greater incentive to have the kdis sooner (when she can) and the guy ahs the greater incentive to pu t it off (when he’s got more money and time to dela with the little rugrats. Obviously, having a “wife” has value, int hat she raises your kids and does all that stuff, but the value is not at all objective, and if the guy didn’t want to have kids for another five years, the “wife” sevrices actualyl may have a negative value. If you don’t want it, it doesn’t have value.

in general, i thing TG is on the right track, everyone should be gay. without the gay sex, at least for me…or maybe a more realistic proposition is to ust have people reproduce solo, bear the costs, and then we wont have all this arguing about al the “sacrifices” that wer emade and how to put a dollar value on them. the problem is, we’re all really too poor to ahve all these families. if families were businesses, they’d be thee tiny marginal enterprises basically not worth runnign on the verge of bankruptcy. Luckily, they have some intangible goodwill valeu that keeps them afloat.

Why should a guy ahve to meet a women’s expectations? Why shoudln’t it be the reverse, for standards in all things? If the guy isn’t cleaning the house, it’s probably not dirty enough…plus, you know, all this cleaning is very bad for your health, you need some filth to build healthy immunity systems in children. clean houses are tantamount to child abuse. ths whole fixation with clean houses is a relatively new innovation (cheack last month’s HARPER’S MAGAZINE for book reviews on two books ont he history of cleaning…)

good luck, boys.

Drink Heavily.

[scaredyclassic]

there was an article in a recent men’s magazine i think DETAILS about a yuppie trend among men to get women to carry their embryos to term and to riase the kids as single dads, kinda like single women do.

the thrust of the article was, if you ahve the cash and you want kids, doing it with a similar professional woman was way too much fo a pain and it would be easier and probably cheaper to just do the whole thing yerself. no risk of payments, no dealing with an upset wife, you get to call the shots, you end up getting laid more, and plus you of course have the kids as a potential attractor for further women (although i dont remember the article saying that).

I think there is a lot to be said for that, that if money isn’t an issue, and you can afford NOT to have a stay-at-home wife why would you personally want potential bickering over the valuation of “wifely” (i mean that int he sense of traditioanlly wifely duties, the duties at home that are unpaid but obviously of value), just pay the market rate and be doe with it. Assuming you really want kids.

i think most guys don’t actually want kids at the time the woman wants kid. this goes back to the “front-loading” issue, where the woman has athe greater incentive to have the kdis sooner (when she can) and the guy ahs the greater incentive to pu t it off (when he’s got more money and time to dela with the little rugrats. Obviously, having a “wife” has value, int hat she raises your kids and does all that stuff, but the value is not at all objective, and if the guy didn’t want to have kids for another five years, the “wife” sevrices actualyl may have a negative value. If you don’t want it, it doesn’t have value.

in general, i thing TG is on the right track, everyone should be gay. without the gay sex, at least for me…or maybe a more realistic proposition is to ust have people reproduce solo, bear the costs, and then we wont have all this arguing about al the “sacrifices” that wer emade and how to put a dollar value on them. the problem is, we’re all really too poor to ahve all these families. if families were businesses, they’d be thee tiny marginal enterprises basically not worth runnign on the verge of bankruptcy. Luckily, they have some intangible goodwill valeu that keeps them afloat.

Why should a guy ahve to meet a women’s expectations? Why shoudln’t it be the reverse, for standards in all things? If the guy isn’t cleaning the house, it’s probably not dirty enough…plus, you know, all this cleaning is very bad for your health, you need some filth to build healthy immunity systems in children. clean houses are tantamount to child abuse. ths whole fixation with clean houses is a relatively new innovation (cheack last month’s HARPER’S MAGAZINE for book reviews on two books ont he history of cleaning…)

good luck, boys.

Drink Heavily.

[scaredyclassic]

there was an article in a recent men’s magazine i think DETAILS about a yuppie trend among men to get women to carry their embryos to term and to riase the kids as single dads, kinda like single women do.

the thrust of the article was, if you ahve the cash and you want kids, doing it with a similar professional woman was way too much fo a pain and it would be easier and probably cheaper to just do the whole thing yerself. no risk of payments, no dealing with an upset wife, you get to call the shots, you end up getting laid more, and plus you of course have the kids as a potential attractor for further women (although i dont remember the article saying that).

I think there is a lot to be said for that, that if money isn’t an issue, and you can afford NOT to have a stay-at-home wife why would you personally want potential bickering over the valuation of “wifely” (i mean that int he sense of traditioanlly wifely duties, the duties at home that are unpaid but obviously of value), just pay the market rate and be doe with it. Assuming you really want kids.

i think most guys don’t actually want kids at the time the woman wants kid. this goes back to the “front-loading” issue, where the woman has athe greater incentive to have the kdis sooner (when she can) and the guy ahs the greater incentive to pu t it off (when he’s got more money and time to dela with the little rugrats. Obviously, having a “wife” has value, int hat she raises your kids and does all that stuff, but the value is not at all objective, and if the guy didn’t want to have kids for another five years, the “wife” sevrices actualyl may have a negative value. If you don’t want it, it doesn’t have value.

in general, i thing TG is on the right track, everyone should be gay. without the gay sex, at least for me…or maybe a more realistic proposition is to ust have people reproduce solo, bear the costs, and then we wont have all this arguing about al the “sacrifices” that wer emade and how to put a dollar value on them. the problem is, we’re all really too poor to ahve all these families. if families were businesses, they’d be thee tiny marginal enterprises basically not worth runnign on the verge of bankruptcy. Luckily, they have some intangible goodwill valeu that keeps them afloat.

Why should a guy ahve to meet a women’s expectations? Why shoudln’t it be the reverse, for standards in all things? If the guy isn’t cleaning the house, it’s probably not dirty enough…plus, you know, all this cleaning is very bad for your health, you need some filth to build healthy immunity systems in children. clean houses are tantamount to child abuse. ths whole fixation with clean houses is a relatively new innovation (cheack last month’s HARPER’S MAGAZINE for book reviews on two books ont he history of cleaning…)

good luck, boys.

Drink Heavily.

[scaredyclassic]

there was an article in a recent men’s magazine i think DETAILS about a yuppie trend among men to get women to carry their embryos to term and to riase the kids as single dads, kinda like single women do.

the thrust of the article was, if you ahve the cash and you want kids, doing it with a similar professional woman was way too much fo a pain and it would be easier and probably cheaper to just do the whole thing yerself. no risk of payments, no dealing with an upset wife, you get to call the shots, you end up getting laid more, and plus you of course have the kids as a potential attractor for further women (although i dont remember the article saying that).

I think there is a lot to be said for that, that if money isn’t an issue, and you can afford NOT to have a stay-at-home wife why would you personally want potential bickering over the valuation of “wifely” (i mean that int he sense of traditioanlly wifely duties, the duties at home that are unpaid but obviously of value), just pay the market rate and be doe with it. Assuming you really want kids.

i think most guys don’t actually want kids at the time the woman wants kid. this goes back to the “front-loading” issue, where the woman has athe greater incentive to have the kdis sooner (when she can) and the guy ahs the greater incentive to pu t it off (when he’s got more money and time to dela with the little rugrats. Obviously, having a “wife” has value, int hat she raises your kids and does all that stuff, but the value is not at all objective, and if the guy didn’t want to have kids for another five years, the “wife” sevrices actualyl may have a negative value. If you don’t want it, it doesn’t have value.

in general, i thing TG is on the right track, everyone should be gay. without the gay sex, at least for me…or maybe a more realistic proposition is to ust have people reproduce solo, bear the costs, and then we wont have all this arguing about al the “sacrifices” that wer emade and how to put a dollar value on them. the problem is, we’re all really too poor to ahve all these families. if families were businesses, they’d be thee tiny marginal enterprises basically not worth runnign on the verge of bankruptcy. Luckily, they have some intangible goodwill valeu that keeps them afloat.

Why should a guy ahve to meet a women’s expectations? Why shoudln’t it be the reverse, for standards in all things? If the guy isn’t cleaning the house, it’s probably not dirty enough…plus, you know, all this cleaning is very bad for your health, you need some filth to build healthy immunity systems in children. clean houses are tantamount to child abuse. ths whole fixation with clean houses is a relatively new innovation (cheack last month’s HARPER’S MAGAZINE for book reviews on two books ont he history of cleaning…)

good luck, boys.

Drink Heavily.

[scaredyclassic]

there was an article in a recent men’s magazine i think DETAILS about a yuppie trend among men to get women to carry their embryos to term and to riase the kids as single dads, kinda like single women do.

the thrust of the article was, if you ahve the cash and you want kids, doing it with a similar professional woman was way too much fo a pain and it would be easier and probably cheaper to just do the whole thing yerself. no risk of payments, no dealing with an upset wife, you get to call the shots, you end up getting laid more, and plus you of course have the kids as a potential attractor for further women (although i dont remember the article saying that).

I think there is a lot to be said for that, that if money isn’t an issue, and you can afford NOT to have a stay-at-home wife why would you personally want potential bickering over the valuation of “wifely” (i mean that int he sense of traditioanlly wifely duties, the duties at home that are unpaid but obviously of value), just pay the market rate and be doe with it. Assuming you really want kids.

i think most guys don’t actually want kids at the time the woman wants kid. this goes back to the “front-loading” issue, where the woman has athe greater incentive to have the kdis sooner (when she can) and the guy ahs the greater incentive to pu t it off (when he’s got more money and time to dela with the little rugrats. Obviously, having a “wife” has value, int hat she raises your kids and does all that stuff, but the value is not at all objective, and if the guy didn’t want to have kids for another five years, the “wife” sevrices actualyl may have a negative value. If you don’t want it, it doesn’t have value.

in general, i thing TG is on the right track, everyone should be gay. without the gay sex, at least for me…or maybe a more realistic proposition is to ust have people reproduce solo, bear the costs, and then we wont have all this arguing about al the “sacrifices” that wer emade and how to put a dollar value on them. the problem is, we’re all really too poor to ahve all these families. if families were businesses, they’d be thee tiny marginal enterprises basically not worth runnign on the verge of bankruptcy. Luckily, they have some intangible goodwill valeu that keeps them afloat.

Why should a guy ahve to meet a women’s expectations? Why shoudln’t it be the reverse, for standards in all things? If the guy isn’t cleaning the house, it’s probably not dirty enough…plus, you know, all this cleaning is very bad for your health, you need some filth to build healthy immunity systems in children. clean houses are tantamount to child abuse. ths whole fixation with clean houses is a relatively new innovation (cheack last month’s HARPER’S MAGAZINE for book reviews on two books ont he history of cleaning…)

good luck, boys.

Drink Heavily.

[Aecetia]

To publicdefender re your earlier question: “I have been thinking lately on April 19, 2008, that I would like some good statistics on what the odds are of being ‘somewhat happy’ on a decisive majority of days of the year, in a long term marriage.”

Here is what the experts say about happiness: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/ap_on_he_me/older_and_happier
…for what it’s worth.

A.

[Aecetia]

To publicdefender re your earlier question: “I have been thinking lately on April 19, 2008, that I would like some good statistics on what the odds are of being ‘somewhat happy’ on a decisive majority of days of the year, in a long term marriage.”

Here is what the experts say about happiness: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/ap_on_he_me/older_and_happier
…for what it’s worth.

A.

[Aecetia]

To publicdefender re your earlier question: “I have been thinking lately on April 19, 2008, that I would like some good statistics on what the odds are of being ‘somewhat happy’ on a decisive majority of days of the year, in a long term marriage.”

Here is what the experts say about happiness: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/ap_on_he_me/older_and_happier
…for what it’s worth.

A.

[Author]

Posts