10 ways to be a better father

dragonlady ) writes:
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.

LOL ! Then, you have very poor reading skills, as the clear intent
of same is quoted right above.

" The woman is not the one who was unfaithful. She did not decieve
the man... " Multiple excuses for her action, based on his.

" And, the man behaved horribly... " Excuse for her action, and
an attempt to *equate his affair, which DIDN'T create a fatherless
by DESIGN child, with her evil, done with MALICE*...

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

Indeed. What she did was far more evil than any adultery.

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.

Nonetheless, there is a clear heirarchy of evils here.

His was to damage his marriage, and cheat on his wife, and promise
to her. Thats wrong, and it's actionable, as far as divorce
goes.

Hers was to CREATE a child for NO purpose other then REVENGE.
To create a life whose whole life will have REVENGE spread over
it. For a full lifespan.

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.

Then, it was irrelevent. Those of us who have read thousands of
such WomenFirster excusemongering, know better. It was placed there,
to *equate* the two *distinct evils*.

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.

Ibid the quotes...

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?

Given those quotes, I would have to believe that you are... very stupid.

Would you like me to do that ? The *only other choice* is that you
WERE excusing her foul malice ridden act, and then... LYING about it.

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

Your *earlier statement* was clearer... And, it was the opposite of
what you now say.

People can judge such flip flops...

Deal with it. You were busted.

" You're a liberated woman. Learn to *lose*. " Danny DeVito,
" Other People's Money ".

Andre

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

"just me" ) writes:
"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.

You MS-spelled " The Lurkers support me in e-mail "...

Cite ?

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.

Good !

Hence the mis-begotten

You MS-spelled " fair "...

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.

Indeed, and the WomanFirsters got their way, so that women suffer no
consequences for *their actions and choices*...

" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. "

Andre

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

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"just me" ) writes:
"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.

You MS-spelled " The Lurkers support me in e-mail "...

Cite ?

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.

Good !

Hence the mis-begotten

You MS-spelled " fair "...

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.

Indeed, and the WomanFirsters got their way, so that women suffer no
consequences for *their actions and choices*...

" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. "



My, you do have an agenda, don't you. Since you do not care to participate
in a discussion but rather an intentional mis-reading of what others say, I
will bid you a less than fond adieu. Go beat your drum where other people
prefer not to obtain facts and limit your understanding. I don't care to
follow your type of attitude.

-Aula
--
see my creative works on ebay under aulame123

On 26 Nov 2003 01:48:25 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

The woman is not the one who was unfaithful.

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

Just like your double standard.

It's fine with you if the man is adulterous, but not if the woman is.
It's fine with you if a man rapes and murders a woman, but
not if a woman seduces a man under false pretences.

Double standards are your stock in trade, not mine.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 26 Nov 2003 01:48:25 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

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...

No, he is guilty of betraying his commitment to her and in this case
he did it first. In your scenarios the woman did it first.

Double standard to blame the woman because she did it first
and then not to blame the man when he does it first.

I condemn the woman for her choice, but it is exactly as
understandable to me as the man's choosing to abandon
a child he acted as father to, that is to say, I cannot fathom
doing this no matter what gender you are.




--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

dragonlady wrote:
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.



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.

None of that was alleged in the scenario given. The adultery was done on
a business trip, convention, where he could not be home during the
evening anyway.

How, specifically did that man hurt his 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.

Tilt. How specifically does any of that damage the children unless the
wife chooses to hurt the children out of spite or malice?


There is the added potential damage of creating a baby outside of a
marriage, and of bringing an STD into the marriage bed.

That was not included in the scenario. Even so it didn't cause any
problems for French President Mitarand (for example). Perhaps such
"damage" is actually caused by the hate and spite rather than the
situation.


Finally,
adultry would lead to a higher potential for divorce -- and I think we
ALL agree that divorce hurts children.

How, specifically, other than the woman's spite or malice, does
occasional adultery at a convention lead to a divorce? The man in the
scenario was not asking for a divorce.


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

Bob said nothing of the kind. You have not shown how adultry is harmful
to anyone, though obviously femroids harbor a whole pile of animosity
and often react with spite and malice. As in this scenario it is often
the reactive spouse who causes all the damage to the children.

Bob

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.

Andre

No matter the situation, the femroids blame the nearest available man.

Bob







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

On 26 Nov 2003 01:52:47 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

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

No one said that. Read what people say not what you are making up
in your head.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In article , Bob
wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
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.



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.

None of that was alleged in the scenario given. The adultery was done on
a business trip, convention, where he could not be home during the
evening anyway.

How, specifically did that man hurt his family.


Doesn't address the $$ or emotional energy issue.


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.

Tilt. How specifically does any of that damage the children unless the
wife chooses to hurt the children out of spite or malice?


Damaging the marriage damages the child; a healthy relationship between
the parents is better for the child.


There is the added potential damage of creating a baby outside of a
marriage, and of bringing an STD into the marriage bed.

That was not included in the scenario. Even so it didn't cause any
problems for French President Mitarand (for example). Perhaps such
"damage" is actually caused by the hate and spite rather than the
situation.


Well, lets assume, for the time being, that I am NOT including as
"adulterous relationships" those where both partners have agreed to some
specific amount of polyamory. I'm not intimately familiar with the
Miterand case, but I know there are marriages that are "open", where the
partners are free to persue sexual relationships outside of the
marriage, provided certain conditions are met. Generally, those
conditions include things like using birth control, STD prevention, and
not lying about anything. Some include a requirement that the married
partner be notified in advance, all (that I'm familiar with) include a
requirement that the person who is NOT part of the marriage also know
that they are married. (Some polyamorists only have sex within a
specific, small group of people -- a group marriage.) I prefer
monogomy, but have polyamourous friends -- different strokes, and all
that. In those cases, having sex with someone else, presumeably, does
NOT damage the relationship. I am only talking about cases where there
is no such agreement -- where vows to remain monogomous have been taken,
and where the partner having sex outside of the marriage is violating
those vows. Violation of vows, going back on promises made, lying --
all of those things damage a relationship. Some women and men are able
to get past the hurt caused by those things, and rebuild a strong
relationship (sometimes with new groundrules) others are not.

Finally,
adultry would lead to a higher potential for divorce -- and I think we
ALL agree that divorce hurts children.

How, specifically, other than the woman's spite or malice, does
occasional adultery at a convention lead to a divorce? The man in the
scenario was not asking for a divorce.

Adultery often leads to divorce, either because the person involved in
the affair decides to leave, or because the spouse finds out and is
unwilling to stay with someone who is breaking their marriage vows.


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

Bob said nothing of the kind. You have not shown how adultry is harmful
to anyone, though obviously femroids harbor a whole pile of animosity
and often react with spite and malice. As in this scenario it is often
the reactive spouse who causes all the damage to the children.

Bob






So, again, to be perfectly clear, as far as you are concerned it's OK
for a woman to have an adulterous affair provided her husband doesn't
find out about it? And if her husband finds out she's having an affair
and leaves her, any damage to the children is HIS fault?

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

dragonlady wrote:
In article , Bob
wrote:

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.

None of that was alleged in the scenario given. The adultery was done on
a business trip, convention, where he could not be home during the
evening anyway.

How, specifically did that man hurt his family.


Doesn't address the $$ or emotional energy issue.

What $$. He was on a business convention, shacked up in the company
hotel room.

As for "emotional energy," it is not like water running out of a hole in
a bucket. In real life sexual energy with the same person runs down
from boredom and is often recharged by meeting someone else once in a
while. A quickie at a convention is likely to ADD TO, not deplete the
emotional energy at home.


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.

Tilt. How specifically does any of that damage the children unless the
wife chooses to hurt the children out of spite or malice?

Damaging the marriage damages the child; a healthy relationship between
the parents is better for the child.

IOW: There is no noticeable harm to the relationship or the children
from the husband getting laid at a convention. All the harm to the
children and to the marriage comes from the malice, spite, and jealousy.


There is the added potential damage of creating a baby outside of a
marriage, and of bringing an STD into the marriage bed.

That was not included in the scenario. Even so it didn't cause any
problems for French President Mitarand (for example). Perhaps such
"damage" is actually caused by the hate and spite rather than the
situation.


Well, lets assume, for the time being, that I am NOT including as
"adulterous relationships" those where both partners have agreed to some
specific amount of polyamory. I'm not intimately familiar with the
Miterand case, but I know there are marriages that are "open", where the
partners are free to persue sexual relationships outside of the
marriage, provided certain conditions are met. Generally, those
conditions include things like using birth control, STD prevention, and
not lying about anything. Some include a requirement that the married
partner be notified in advance, all (that I'm familiar with) include a
requirement that the person who is NOT part of the marriage also know
that they are married. (Some polyamorists only have sex within a
specific, small group of people -- a group marriage.) I prefer
monogomy, but have polyamourous friends -- different strokes, and all
that. In those cases, having sex with someone else, presumeably, does
NOT damage the relationship. I am only talking about cases where there
is no such agreement -- where vows to remain monogomous have been taken,
and where the partner having sex outside of the marriage is violating
those vows. Violation of vows, going back on promises made, lying --
all of those things damage a relationship. Some women and men are able
to get past the hurt caused by those things, and rebuild a strong
relationship (sometimes with new groundrules) others are not.


Lying is not good for a relationship. Its much better for the
relationship if one spouse can allow the spouse to be honest about their
feelings and needs.

Vows to be monogamous are almost always a recipe for lying or sorrow.
Some of the most horrible marriages Bob has ever seen were where they
were strictly following a religious monogamy despite having all energy
drained out of their relationship decades before. It is much better to
support each other's needs and be creative in your support for each
other rather than clinging to some rigid standard. Most people just end
up lying.

There are couples who agree to "lie" to each other about certain topics,
sex being common. Is is really a lie if there is an agreement not to
tell?

But does adultry harm the children? Usually not in real life. Often it
adds to the energy and love available at home. Jealousy, meanness,
vindictiveness, spite, and such evils are much worse.


Finally,
adultry would lead to a higher potential for divorce -- and I think we
ALL agree that divorce hurts children.

How, specifically, other than the woman's spite or malice, does
occasional adultery at a convention lead to a divorce? The man in the
scenario was not asking for a divorce.

Adultery often leads to divorce, either because the person involved in
the affair decides to leave, or because the spouse finds out and is
unwilling to stay with someone who is breaking their marriage vows.

Feminism has taught women to leave their husband if there is any outside
sex. This is a change, and a radical change from how marriage was
practiced throughout history and across many cultures. Feminism has
opposed marriage for more than a century and sought reasons and excuses
to break up families and encourages women to be jealous, vindictive,
spiteful, and hateful of their men. Viewed from a historical
perspective it is feminism, not a man's adultery, that much more often
breaks up marriages. In some surveys posted previously adultery is way
down the list of reasons why marriages break up.

In the scenario the man's adultry was not going to break up the marriage
or cause him to hurt his children. It was a night at a convention. Her
feminist inspired spite did that.


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

Bob said nothing of the kind. You have not shown how adultry is harmful
to anyone, though obviously femroids harbor a whole pile of animosity
and often react with spite and malice. As in this scenario it is often
the reactive spouse who causes all the damage to the children.

So, again, to be perfectly clear, as far as you are concerned it's OK
for a woman to have an adulterous affair provided her husband doesn't
find out about it? And if her husband finds out she's having an affair
and leaves her, any damage to the children is HIS fault?
meh

From a historical view of marriage, not the feminist sham most people
have today, a minority of marriages last a lifetime, and often those
become empty shells of animosity. When there is a commitment to support
and help each other, indulging each other's emotional needs, there is
little likelihood of adultry breaking up a marriage. Of course the
feminist view of marriage, "throw the asshole out" is looking for an
excuse and often finds one. When SHE does that the destruction of the
family is HER fault.

Whelping a ******* into a family is another matter entirely. A woman
out whoring needs to make better choices than to get pregnant and birth
a *******. There are technological options today so there is no excuse.

Bob