10 ways to be a better father

In article , Bob
wrote:

Nan wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:18:51 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:


In article , Bob
wrote:


Yes she is, in that scenario she betrayed her marriage much worse than
the husband. His conduct did nothing to harm the marriage. Hers
destroyed the family. She is by far the most guilty.



Just to make sure I'm clear on your point, Bob, you say "his conduct did
nothing to harm the marriage." Are you saying that adultry doesn't harm
a marriage? Would this also be true for a woman committing adultry
without creating another child in the process? IOW, are you saying that
adultry only harms a marriage when a child is conceived in the adultry?


Bob's bias is very clear. The man can stray, but the woman isn't
allowed to.

Nan


Nan's bias is very clear, as usual. The woman in dragonlady scenario
deliberately destroyed her family and marriage, and used children as
pawns in a hate game. SHE hurt the children deliberately and permanently.

But Nan and dragonlady blame the nearest available man.

Bob

Bob, I didn't say anything about what the woman did, or even about who I
think behaved worse -- I just asked a question, which you have not
answered. Are you saying that adultry doesn't hurt a marriage?

(and it wasn't my scenario)

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article , Bob
wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
In article , Bob
wrote:


Rosalie B. wrote:

x-no-archive:yes "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote:



"Nan" wrote in message
m...


On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:11:59 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"

[]


It's not about choosing to be hostile. It's about being deeply hurt.

When


people are hurt the protect themselves. Sometimes they even lash out
at
innocent bystanders.

Of course it's about *choosing* to be hostile. Bob isn't lashing out
at an innocent bystander, he's choosing to eradicate a relationship
that previously existed, in an effort to punish a woman.

Bob has been writing about a hypothetical situation. We don't know what
Bob
would do if this actually happened to him. Bob is making the point that
a
man has no obligations to a child that is a product of his wife's
adultery.
A man might choose to maintain a relationship with such a child, but he
is
not obliged to.

snip
OK - what would be the take on this situation?

A man and a woman who are married have three boys. All three boys are
genetically the children of both the mom and dad. The mom makes a
surprise visit to a conference that the dad is attending and walks
into his hotel room and finds the dad in bed with another woman
engaging in sex. She is enraged.


That's a typical feminist reaction. French President Miterand's
mistress and family came to the state funeral and sat behind the wife
and her family. Its much less vicious than the "enraged" attitude of
feminists.



She says to the man OK you were
unfaithful to me. I am going to get artificial insemination from a
sperm bank. I will get a divorce and you will have to support all
four children.


Typical feminist -- any excuse to destroy the family and use children
to hurt the man. Feminists hate families. Shame on her.



The woman is not the one who was unfaithful.

Yes she is, in that scenario she betrayed her marriage much worse than
the husband. His conduct did nothing to harm the marriage. Hers
destroyed the family. She is by far the most guilty.



Just to make sure I'm clear on your point, Bob, you say "his conduct did
nothing to harm the marriage." Are you saying that adultry doesn't harm
a marriage? Would this also be true for a woman committing adultry
without creating another child in the process? IOW, are you saying that
adultry only harms a marriage when a child is conceived in the adultry?
meh


If she had stayed home and not gone to the convention to snoop and
scream, how, specifically, would the marriage, or the children, have
suffered?

Other than her ranting and hurt feelings, how, specifically, had the
family been destroyed the year before?

Bob






So adultry is OK if you don't get caught? Does this go for both women
and men? And if they DO get caught, it's the fault of the "snooping"
spouse?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

dragonlady wrote:
In article , Bob
wrote:


Nan wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:18:51 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:



In article , Bob
wrote:


Yes she is, in that scenario she betrayed her marriage much worse than
the husband. His conduct did nothing to harm the marriage. Hers
destroyed the family. She is by far the most guilty.



Just to make sure I'm clear on your point, Bob, you say "his conduct did
nothing to harm the marriage." Are you saying that adultry doesn't harm
a marriage? Would this also be true for a woman committing adultry
without creating another child in the process? IOW, are you saying that
adultry only harms a marriage when a child is conceived in the adultry?


Bob's bias is very clear. The man can stray, but the woman isn't
allowed to.

Nan


Nan's bias is very clear, as usual. The woman in dragonlady scenario
deliberately destroyed her family and marriage, and used children as
pawns in a hate game. SHE hurt the children deliberately and permanently.

But Nan and dragonlady blame the nearest available man.

Bob


Bob, I didn't say anything about what the woman did, or even about who I
think behaved worse -- I just asked a question, which you have not
answered. Are you saying that adultry doesn't hurt a marriage?

(and it wasn't my scenario)

meh


You're right. It was "grandma Rosalie's" scenario. She said nothing
about any harm to the family or the children from the man's actions.
She described deliberate horrible harm to the children by the mother.

"grandma Rosalie" did not describe harm to the children caused by the
adultry in this scenario.

Sometimes adultry hurts a marriage, but no where near as often as anger
about adultry. French President Miterand is a good example of a more
civilized and less harmful custom of dealing with adultery.


Bob

dragonlady wrote:
In article , Bob
wrote:

Just to make sure I'm clear on your point, Bob, you say "his conduct did
nothing to harm the marriage." Are you saying that adultry doesn't harm
a marriage? Would this also be true for a woman committing adultry
without creating another child in the process? IOW, are you saying that
adultry only harms a marriage when a child is conceived in the adultry?
meh


If she had stayed home and not gone to the convention to snoop and
scream, how, specifically, would the marriage, or the children, have
suffered?

Other than her ranting and hurt feelings, how, specifically, had the
family been destroyed the year before?



So adultry is OK if you don't get caught? Does this go for both women
and men? And if they DO get caught, it's the fault of the "snooping"
spouse?

meh


We need to be clear on what specific harm to the children, family, you
are talking about. All you did was dodge. Please answer the question.

Bob

Nan wrote:
YIP YIP YAP YAP

Nan


Somebody let the bitch out. She needs to pee again.

Rosalie B. ) writes:
x-no-archive:yes "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote:

"Nan" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:11:59 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"

[]
It's not about choosing to be hostile. It's about being deeply hurt.
When people are hurt the protect themselves. Sometimes they even
lash out at innocent bystanders.

Of course it's about *choosing* to be hostile. Bob isn't lashing out
at an innocent bystander, he's choosing to eradicate a relationship
that previously existed, in an effort to punish a woman.

Bob has been writing about a hypothetical situation. We don't know what Bob
would do if this actually happened to him. Bob is making the point that a
man has no obligations to a child that is a product of his wife's adultery.
A man might choose to maintain a relationship with such a child, but he is
not obliged to.
snip
OK - what would be the take on this situation?

A man and a woman who are married have three boys. All three boys are
genetically the children of both the mom and dad. The mom makes a
surprise visit to a conference that the dad is attending and walks
into his hotel room and finds the dad in bed with another woman
engaging in sex. She is enraged. She says to the man OK you were
unfaithful to me. I am going to get artificial insemination from a
sperm bank. I will get a divorce and you will have to support all
four children.

Creating, maliciously, a child that will never have a father, in an
effort to get recenge and stolen resources...

How sweet. Thats an excellent definition of of criminal negligence.

The woman is not the one who was unfaithful.

Its a double standard, to decry one evil, while perpetrating another.

She did not deceive the
man about the parentage of the fourth child (who was a girl BTW).

Gee, one offense that shes not guilty of... Just like *he's not
guilty* of making fatherless children...

They get a divorce and the man gets custody of all the two youngest
children (including the one not biologically his), remarries and has
other children by the 2nd wife. This is an actual case.

And, an excellent example of the biases of Family Kourts.

The wife, for her malice and revenge, in *taking it out on a
not yet CREATED child*, is evil. She should lose all custody,
pay about 50% of her income in CS, and be barred from any unsupervised
contact with the ex, and the kids.

At some point in this thread a guy commented that the woman was the
only one who could chose to 'throw away' the child by having it
adopted. I don't think that is correct. IIRC I remember at least one
case where the mom gave the baby up for adoption but the dad didn't
know that the child was his. When he found out about his child he
took the child away from the adoptive parents because he had not given
consent for the child to be adopted.

But, you may remember poorly... So, no sale.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Nan ) writes:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:33:16 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
wrote:

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
. ..

[]
OK - what would be the take on this situation?

A man and a woman who are married have three boys. All three boys are
genetically the children of both the mom and dad. The mom makes a
surprise visit to a conference that the dad is attending and walks
into his hotel room and finds the dad in bed with another woman
engaging in sex. She is enraged. She says to the man OK you were
unfaithful to me. I am going to get artificial insemination from a
sperm bank. I will get a divorce and you will have to support all
four children.

The woman is not the one who was unfaithful. She did not deceive the
man about the parentage of the fourth child (who was a girl BTW).

They get a divorce and the man gets custody of all the two youngest
children (including the one not biologically his), remarries and has
other children by the 2nd wife. This is an actual case.

That woman behaved horribly. To have a child for the purpose of hurting
someone is terrible.

Jayne

And the man behaved horribly by having an affair, thus tossing his
family to the dogs.

Amazing. Before, you were all a'twitter at a man " harming " a child
NOT HIS, by leaving it.

Now, you see the CREATION of a child PURELY for *revenge* as fine,
and of no " harm " to the *child*...

Your MISANDRY is clear. Any evil women DO, you excuse. Any
men's response to *such female evil*, you decry.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In article , Bob
wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
In article , Bob
wrote:

Just to make sure I'm clear on your point, Bob, you say "his conduct did
nothing to harm the marriage." Are you saying that adultry doesn't harm
a marriage? Would this also be true for a woman committing adultry
without creating another child in the process? IOW, are you saying that
adultry only harms a marriage when a child is conceived in the adultry?
meh


If she had stayed home and not gone to the convention to snoop and
scream, how, specifically, would the marriage, or the children, have
suffered?

Other than her ranting and hurt feelings, how, specifically, had the
family been destroyed the year before?



So adultry is OK if you don't get caught? Does this go for both women
and men? And if they DO get caught, it's the fault of the "snooping"
spouse?

meh


We need to be clear on what specific harm to the children, family, you
are talking about. All you did was dodge. Please answer the question.

Bob





Adultry hurts a marriage in at LEAST two ways:

1 - the person committing adultry is spending time, often $$, and
emotional energy on another relationship; those things ought to be
spent on their marriage, and taking them away from the marriage hurts
the family.

2 - the person committing adultry is lying to his or her partner, which
damages THAT relationship further; anything that damages the
relationship between the married couple damages their children.

There is the added potential damage of creating a baby outside of a
marriage, and of bringing an STD into the marriage bed. Finally,
adultry would lead to a higher potential for divorce -- and I think we
ALL agree that divorce hurts children.

So -- are you really saying adultry is OK if you don't get caught?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

Nan ) writes:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:33:16 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
wrote:

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
. ..

[]
OK - what would be the take on this situation?

A man and a woman who are married have three boys. All three boys are
genetically the children of both the mom and dad. The mom makes a
surprise visit to a conference that the dad is attending and walks
into his hotel room and finds the dad in bed with another woman
engaging in sex. She is enraged. She says to the man OK you were
unfaithful to me. I am going to get artificial insemination from a
sperm bank. I will get a divorce and you will have to support all
four children.

The woman is not the one who was unfaithful. She did not deceive the
man about the parentage of the fourth child (who was a girl BTW).

They get a divorce and the man gets custody of all the two youngest
children (including the one not biologically his), remarries and has
other children by the 2nd wife. This is an actual case.

That woman behaved horribly. To have a child for the purpose of hurting
someone is terrible.

Jayne

And the man behaved horribly by having an affair, thus tossing his
family to the dogs.

Amazing. Before, you were all a'twitter at a man " harming " a child
NOT HIS, by leaving it.

Now, you see the CREATION of a child PURELY for *revenge* as fine,
and of no " harm " to the *child*...

Your MISANDRY is clear. Any evil women DO, you excuse. Any
men's response to *such female evil*, you decry.


Try as I might, I can't find a single entry in this thread where anyone
has tried to justify this woman's appalling behavior.

The woman was wrong -- what she did was inexcusable. Period.

Commenting that the man's choice to engage in an adulterous affair was
also wrong in NO WAY changes the fact that the woman was wrong to
deliberately create a child just to punish her husband for his
adulterous affair.

Stating that the woman didn't have an affair is accurate -- but not an
attempt to justify what she DID do. There can be no justification for
what she did.

The woman was wrong. No one here has ever argued, in any way, that what
the woman did can be excused, justified, tolerated, or any other
positive thing. She was just plain WRONG.

Can any of us make it any more clear that we do NOT excuse this woman's
horrible decision? That we agree that she was wrong?

Are you even capable of HEARING us when we agree that what a woman did
was wrong?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
Rosalie B. ) writes:

At some point in this thread a guy commented that the woman was the
only one who could chose to 'throw away' the child by having it
adopted. I don't think that is correct. IIRC I remember at least one
case where the mom gave the baby up for adoption but the dad didn't
know that the child was his. When he found out about his child he
took the child away from the adoptive parents because he had not given
consent for the child to be adopted.

But, you may remember poorly... So, no sale.



That information Rosalie gave is accurate. There have been several cases in
recent years where adoptions were nullified or blocked because the father
was located and asserted his rights to parent the child. Hence the
mis-begotten Florida statute requiring women to attempt to locate the father
of a child which they want to place for adoption so that the father can also
sign surrenders - even if the father is a john or rapist. Big hoo-ha
hereabouts in last couple years.

-Aula, in Florida
--
see my creative works on ebay under aulame123