10 ways to be a better father

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:38:56 -0700, Bob wrote:

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.

IOW, it's ok for the woman too if she doesn't get pregnant or bring
home and std and doesn't get caught?


--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits

"just me" ) writes:
"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.

Absa-fraggin'-lutely. Its: Justice, fairness, equality of rights *and*
responsibilities for people, regardless of sex.

And, an opposition of sexism...

BTW, thanks for whowing that you too, have an " agenda ". You appear
to view others *having what you have as somehow " *illigitimate* "...

How... Soviet of 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.

Translation: " I am so *furious* that I CAN'T refute *any of your
arguments*, so I'm going to throw a hissy fit over *my total failure*. "

Got it. I understand, being as limited and sexist as you are, must be
a burden. Feel free to unplug the lights, and just mutter mindlessly
at the terrible fate of men actually daring to *speak their views*...

laughs

Andre

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

toto ) writes:
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.

Nope. I'm just *smart* enough to realise that two distinct cases,
one where *a child is manufactured to be an instrument of female
REVENGE*, is NOT the same, or even remotely equivalent, to a man
defouling his marital vows.

Funny how you're all about the *kid's welfare*... UNTIL the
*woman* can USE the kid as a means of revenge *against a man*...

Thats about the biggest double standard I've ever seen...

It's fine with you if the man is adulterous, but not if the woman is.

LIE ! Its evil for anyone to commit adultery.

But, the man's adultery CANNOT make his wife believe that a child
of the marriage is hers, biologically, *when it isn't*...

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

Now, you're *really* LYING...

Post PROOF of that claim of *yours*, or choke on it, man hater.

Double standards are your stock in trade, not mine.

Well, now we know that LIES are yours...

Nothing new for a WomanFirster...

" How do you tell when a Feminist is lying... Her lips are
moving... "

Andre

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

toto wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:38:56 -0700, Bob wrote:


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.


IOW, it's ok for the woman too if she doesn't get pregnant or bring
home and std and doesn't get caught?
Dorothy


Its doubtful if being okay would make much difference to most women.

From Chicago burbs, to London flats, to African mud huts women tend to
**** the first handsome hunk who becomes available on their most fertile
days. And then usually deny it even to themselves. "Its not like me."

Bob

toto ) writes:
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.

Who cares ? Wrong is wrong.

BUT, the man CANNOT make the wife believe that a child of his affair
is *biologically HERS*.

The cheatin' wife CAN, and often DOES, defraud her cuckolded
husband, into believing that her baby with Stud Boy is his blood
child.

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

LIE. Nothing new from you, as Festering Femmeroids will tell
*any lie* to *avoid* holding *any woman responsible for her
chosen evil actions*.

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.

We are happy to stipulate any degree of your *ignorance* as
you feel necessary to display.

IOW, your *inability* is no one's problem but your own.

Deal with it.

Andre

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

toto ) writes:
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.

ROTFLMAO ! Were that true, and not another of your *lies*, you
could have appended the relevent post of the OP.

Uh huh.

Andre

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

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Bob wrote:

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.

And so what is it that causes men to react in similar ways when the
woman commits adultery?

toto ) writes:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:38:56 -0700, Bob wrote:

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.

IOW, it's ok for the woman too if she doesn't get pregnant or bring
home and std and doesn't get caught?

Its no different than if the husband does the same things.

What IS different is his affair CANNOT fool the wife into the fraudulent
belief that a child in the family is hers, biologically, when *its not*.

Andre

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

Joni Rathbun wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Bob wrote:


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.


And so what is it that causes men to react in similar ways when the
woman commits adultery?

Despite a lot of feminist hate dogma to the contrary, most men do not
react that way compared to women. By far the most divorces are filed by
women who are often looking for an excuse.

Bob

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Nan wrote:
And the man behaved horribly by having an affair, thus tossing his
family to the dogs.

Lying feminist "blame the man" crap. Nobody alleged that he tossed the
family to the dogs or did anything negative to the family at all.


The man broke his marriage vows. Is this not wrong?
If not, one has to assume that you think that men can do
no wrong.


P. Tierney