CS and women's greed strikes again..

You seem like a reasonable person (unlike some who shall remain nameless).
However, I can't understand the ability of the people on this mg to twist
another's words so much that they mean something completely different than
what they say. My responses in line below yours (if you care to read them
and not just believe what you want).

--
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin
"Don" don@free wrote in message ...

"Krista" wrote in message
m...
Actually, twice counseling was suggested, once by me and once by him.
When
we'd been married about 6 months I started talking to an old boyfriend
(really old, like five years before, he was the father of my first
child,
who was relinquished), we were both married, with kids (well, I had one
on
the way).

We talked about our past, how my mom split us up, and what would have
happened if that hadn't been the case. All innocent stuff, but my ex
took
it like I was cheating on him and ordered me not to speak to the guy
again.


Not an unreasonable thing to ask. If it was him talking to a
ex-girlfriend
most women would have an issue with that.

I didn't. He talked to MANY of his ex-girlfriends. He was friends with
many of them and went out places with them at times, WITHOUT ME. But when
all I did was email and IM with an old boyfriend of MINE who lived on the
other side of the country, he freaked. Not exactly cut-and-dried, is it?

First of all, I take orders from no one, and second, the guy and I
shared
a
child, albeit one neither of us had seen in years. He sent me packing
to
my
parents house telling me he'd "take me back" if I told my parents "the
truth." He thought they'd side with him, but they didn't.

They thought he was being insecure, that all my communications with my
old
boyfriend were completely free of any innuendo, even after my ex showed
them
the emails and IM transcripts. I guess that was when I first knew we
had
a
"problem." He suggested counseling, and I said I didn't think we could
afford it, but sure, if he thought we could. I never heard about it
again.


He again sounds totally reasonable. You were talking to your ex-boyfriend
no matter how innoncent it may have been it is understandable why a
husband
would have a problem with it. He then offers counseling but you bring up
affordability.. This guy would have to be a total wuss to insist on it at
this point since the ball was in your court to push the issue with
counseling. Did you want him to beg? geez.

He had complete control of our finances. I kinda suspected that we were
basically broke even though he made a good salary, but I didn't *kno2*
anything about our finances. All he had to say was, we can afford it. Not
beg, just say we could afford it. That's not that hard is it? Except one
of two things: 1) HE knew we couldn't afford it unless he gave up one of his
"extras", or 2) HE wasn't really interested in counseling, he was just
offering it to "do the right thing." Refer to previous paragraph about why
talking to an ex boyfriend is NOT something he should have had a problem
with.

Fast forward 7 months... Our daughter was six months old and I was
afraid
to leave him alone with her. I left for my parents' house, a trial
separation, I told him. He called me every day begging me to come back,
and
after a week, I finally did.

Things got better for a week and then they went back to the way they
were
before I left, so at the end of the month I left again, more determined
this
time. I lasted two weeks before returning. The house was a pig sty.
The
catbox hadn't been cleaned since I'd left, the kitchen and living room
were
full of dirty dishes, and the laundry room was full of dirty clothes,
including two women's shirts I found while sorting through the dirty
clothes. Shirts that did not belong to me and were not of a size to fit
my
mother or his.


This sounds typical of someone who has been hurt and in depression. The
girl leaves and everything goes to hell for awhile. You walked out after a
history of contact with an ex-boyfriend.

THE HOUSE WAS ALWAYS LIKE THAT UNLESS I CLEANED IT, EVEN THOUGH I WAS
WORKING MORE HOURS A DAY THAN HE WAS. Because in addition to my "real" job,
I was solely responsible for all care of our daughter, except the few times
I left her home alone with him. He NEVER cleaned up after himself. That
part was normal and had nothing to do with my leaving... Except that I
wasn't there to clean it up, so it just sat there. Again, I emailed and
IMed with him, and NOTHING ELSE, while at the same time my (then) husband
WENT OUT WITH his exes WITHOUT ME, because they were his "friends". And
*HE* should have "had a problem"? I don't see the logic there, sorry. He's
allowed to be friends with his exes and go places with them whitout me, but
I can't even TALK to my ex because it's inapproriate?

One time before when I'd been visiting my parents (a real visit, not a
trial
separation) he'd let a female friend of ours stay in our apartment, but
that
had been months before so I knew the clothes couldn't have been from
that,
which is what he tried to tell me. I gave him an ultimatum the next
day,
either the emotional abuse stopped or at the end of 30 days I was
leaving,
for real, and for good, and there would be no sex during that time (he'd
already tried to "trap" me by not using a condom when he said he was).
There would be no coming back or counseling or anything.

I suggested we go to counseling, but, because I was in control of the
finances since he'd spent all our money. I knew there was no way we
could
afford it unless he was willing to give up going out to lunch every day
at
work ($10/day) and or give up his weekly PlayStation games ($50+/week).
He
wasn't, so we didn't go.

To give him credit, he lasted a full two weeks that time, but one
afternoon
when I came home from running some errands he asked me if I wanted to go
out
to dinner (at a place I'd been dying to try). I said yes and went to
get
ready.

While I was fixing my hair he came up behind me and started kissing my
neck
and reached down to undo my pants. I told him no and he said "but I
want
to" and I said no, and he said "either we do or we don't go." I was
appalled that he thought I would do that just to go out to dinner and I
again told him no. He said, "Fine, I want a divorce then." I told him
"Sure, how do you want to do this?" I left the next day.


Typical reaction from a scorned lover in this case a male. You sound like
one cold chick.

Yeah? Well, that's your opinion. I didn't want to get pregnant again if
there was ANY chance I might be leaving. If he'd kept up being the guy he
was the two weeks prior to that incident, I would have stayed and then it
wouldn't have mattered. He only had 11 days left. I don't think asking him
to go without sex for 30 days while we try to reconcile is that harsh.
Especially considering I knew he was cheating on me (probably with one of
the exes I let him "hang out" with).

My parents lived about 3.5-4 hours from where he did and he didn't even
try
to see me or our daughter for 5 months. He emailed me every week or so,
trying to get me to come back, offering counseling, saying he knew we
couldn't afford it but his mom said she'd pay for it (yeah right, the
woman
hates me, always has, even when we were married).


He offers counseling again.

When it's too little, too late, yeah.

I had warned him that if I ever actually had had enough and left I would
never come back, I couldn't. And I didn't. After the September 11th
attacks he renewed his efforts although he'd been silent on that front
for
a
while, but by then I was starting to work through things and I wasn't
about
to go back.

I later found out how sure of himself he was. A friend of mine who I
hadn't
called before I left, called asking for me. He told her I'd left but
that
I'd "be back in just a week or two, you'll see."


This is typical of some people, how they react when lover walks out on
them.

Okay, so he reacted normally. I said he was a jerk, not a non-human.

And then there's the $400 that mysteriously "disappeared" from our bank
account that last time I visited my parents before actually leaving him.
I'm sure he spent it on the woman to whom the shirts belonged, and I
know
he
went shopping at our local sex toy shop with her, so I imagine that's
where
it went.

So now you have a bigger picture. Still not the whole thing, but a
bigger
picture for sure. I didn't just "bail." I tried to work it out, and I
tried to seek counseling, but I couldn't do it alone (well, the
counseling
I
could have, but that would have had the same effect, he wanted a
Stepford
wife, I wasn't willing to be one).


From your own words in this post it is clear you did not make the effort
with conseling. It takes two willing individuals not one begging for it.

I *WAS* willing. When I had NO CONTROL over our finances, all I asked was
that he assure me we could afford the expense. I would have had no idea
whether it was true or not, but at that time I still trusted him. All he
had to do when I said I'd go if we could afford it was "Sure, we can afford
it." That's not begging, that's just giving information. When I offered
counseling, I KNEW we were dead broke (again, thanks to him) and the ONLY
way we could afford it was for him to give up one of his "luxuries." I had
already cut back everywhere else (we stopped going out, renting movies, etc.
and I cut back on groceries as much as I could and still feed us all), but
*HE* wasn't willing to give up *his* luxuries. As usual, only mine were
expendable.

And still, $50,000 was MINE before we were even married, so I still say
that
*I* should have gotten pretty much the complete contents of our
apartment,
since he spent it without my knowledge as soon as he got control over
it.


If the roles were reversed with him as the woman that took the 50k it
would
be the typical "you go girl". He walked out on you, "you go girl, take
him
for everything".

And you know what, I think *that* sucks, too. That's why if I was in that
situation again I'd insist on a pre-nup. And I think it's a good idea for
anyone who has more assets than their soon-to-be-spouse to do so. So that
stops happening. Because until it does, there will always be money-grubbers
like Anna Nicole Smith et. al. I'm no feminist. I just think that all
things should be equal. But by even THAT logic, I came out WAY behind. And
you know what else? I would take $0 child support if he'd agree to take her
half the year (and then DO it). As it stands I have her 313 days of the
year and he has her AT MOST 48 (more like two days/month usually, by HIS OWN
choice, not because of anything I do or did, our decree says he gets much
more than that, but he never takes it), so I take my child support check and
put it towards her future, so that at least he can rest assured I'm not
spending the money on my "new" family.

You seem like a reasonable person (unlike some who shall remain nameless).
However, I can't understand the ability of the people on this mg to twist
another's words so much that they mean something completely different than
what they say. My responses in line below yours (if you care to read them
and not just believe what you want).

--
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin
"Don" don@free wrote in message ...

"Krista" wrote in message
m...
Actually, twice counseling was suggested, once by me and once by him.
When
we'd been married about 6 months I started talking to an old boyfriend
(really old, like five years before, he was the father of my first
child,
who was relinquished), we were both married, with kids (well, I had one
on
the way).

We talked about our past, how my mom split us up, and what would have
happened if that hadn't been the case. All innocent stuff, but my ex
took
it like I was cheating on him and ordered me not to speak to the guy
again.


Not an unreasonable thing to ask. If it was him talking to a
ex-girlfriend
most women would have an issue with that.

I didn't. He talked to MANY of his ex-girlfriends. He was friends with
many of them and went out places with them at times, WITHOUT ME. But when
all I did was email and IM with an old boyfriend of MINE who lived on the
other side of the country, he freaked. Not exactly cut-and-dried, is it?

First of all, I take orders from no one, and second, the guy and I
shared
a
child, albeit one neither of us had seen in years. He sent me packing
to
my
parents house telling me he'd "take me back" if I told my parents "the
truth." He thought they'd side with him, but they didn't.

They thought he was being insecure, that all my communications with my
old
boyfriend were completely free of any innuendo, even after my ex showed
them
the emails and IM transcripts. I guess that was when I first knew we
had
a
"problem." He suggested counseling, and I said I didn't think we could
afford it, but sure, if he thought we could. I never heard about it
again.


He again sounds totally reasonable. You were talking to your ex-boyfriend
no matter how innoncent it may have been it is understandable why a
husband
would have a problem with it. He then offers counseling but you bring up
affordability.. This guy would have to be a total wuss to insist on it at
this point since the ball was in your court to push the issue with
counseling. Did you want him to beg? geez.

He had complete control of our finances. I kinda suspected that we were
basically broke even though he made a good salary, but I didn't *kno2*
anything about our finances. All he had to say was, we can afford it. Not
beg, just say we could afford it. That's not that hard is it? Except one
of two things: 1) HE knew we couldn't afford it unless he gave up one of his
"extras", or 2) HE wasn't really interested in counseling, he was just
offering it to "do the right thing." Refer to previous paragraph about why
talking to an ex boyfriend is NOT something he should have had a problem
with.

Fast forward 7 months... Our daughter was six months old and I was
afraid
to leave him alone with her. I left for my parents' house, a trial
separation, I told him. He called me every day begging me to come back,
and
after a week, I finally did.

Things got better for a week and then they went back to the way they
were
before I left, so at the end of the month I left again, more determined
this
time. I lasted two weeks before returning. The house was a pig sty.
The
catbox hadn't been cleaned since I'd left, the kitchen and living room
were
full of dirty dishes, and the laundry room was full of dirty clothes,
including two women's shirts I found while sorting through the dirty
clothes. Shirts that did not belong to me and were not of a size to fit
my
mother or his.


This sounds typical of someone who has been hurt and in depression. The
girl leaves and everything goes to hell for awhile. You walked out after a
history of contact with an ex-boyfriend.

THE HOUSE WAS ALWAYS LIKE THAT UNLESS I CLEANED IT, EVEN THOUGH I WAS
WORKING MORE HOURS A DAY THAN HE WAS. Because in addition to my "real" job,
I was solely responsible for all care of our daughter, except the few times
I left her home alone with him. He NEVER cleaned up after himself. That
part was normal and had nothing to do with my leaving... Except that I
wasn't there to clean it up, so it just sat there. Again, I emailed and
IMed with him, and NOTHING ELSE, while at the same time my (then) husband
WENT OUT WITH his exes WITHOUT ME, because they were his "friends". And
*HE* should have "had a problem"? I don't see the logic there, sorry. He's
allowed to be friends with his exes and go places with them whitout me, but
I can't even TALK to my ex because it's inapproriate?

One time before when I'd been visiting my parents (a real visit, not a
trial
separation) he'd let a female friend of ours stay in our apartment, but
that
had been months before so I knew the clothes couldn't have been from
that,
which is what he tried to tell me. I gave him an ultimatum the next
day,
either the emotional abuse stopped or at the end of 30 days I was
leaving,
for real, and for good, and there would be no sex during that time (he'd
already tried to "trap" me by not using a condom when he said he was).
There would be no coming back or counseling or anything.

I suggested we go to counseling, but, because I was in control of the
finances since he'd spent all our money. I knew there was no way we
could
afford it unless he was willing to give up going out to lunch every day
at
work ($10/day) and or give up his weekly PlayStation games ($50+/week).
He
wasn't, so we didn't go.

To give him credit, he lasted a full two weeks that time, but one
afternoon
when I came home from running some errands he asked me if I wanted to go
out
to dinner (at a place I'd been dying to try). I said yes and went to
get
ready.

While I was fixing my hair he came up behind me and started kissing my
neck
and reached down to undo my pants. I told him no and he said "but I
want
to" and I said no, and he said "either we do or we don't go." I was
appalled that he thought I would do that just to go out to dinner and I
again told him no. He said, "Fine, I want a divorce then." I told him
"Sure, how do you want to do this?" I left the next day.


Typical reaction from a scorned lover in this case a male. You sound like
one cold chick.

Yeah? Well, that's your opinion. I didn't want to get pregnant again if
there was ANY chance I might be leaving. If he'd kept up being the guy he
was the two weeks prior to that incident, I would have stayed and then it
wouldn't have mattered. He only had 11 days left. I don't think asking him
to go without sex for 30 days while we try to reconcile is that harsh.
Especially considering I knew he was cheating on me (probably with one of
the exes I let him "hang out" with).

My parents lived about 3.5-4 hours from where he did and he didn't even
try
to see me or our daughter for 5 months. He emailed me every week or so,
trying to get me to come back, offering counseling, saying he knew we
couldn't afford it but his mom said she'd pay for it (yeah right, the
woman
hates me, always has, even when we were married).


He offers counseling again.

When it's too little, too late, yeah.

I had warned him that if I ever actually had had enough and left I would
never come back, I couldn't. And I didn't. After the September 11th
attacks he renewed his efforts although he'd been silent on that front
for
a
while, but by then I was starting to work through things and I wasn't
about
to go back.

I later found out how sure of himself he was. A friend of mine who I
hadn't
called before I left, called asking for me. He told her I'd left but
that
I'd "be back in just a week or two, you'll see."


This is typical of some people, how they react when lover walks out on
them.

Okay, so he reacted normally. I said he was a jerk, not a non-human.

And then there's the $400 that mysteriously "disappeared" from our bank
account that last time I visited my parents before actually leaving him.
I'm sure he spent it on the woman to whom the shirts belonged, and I
know
he
went shopping at our local sex toy shop with her, so I imagine that's
where
it went.

So now you have a bigger picture. Still not the whole thing, but a
bigger
picture for sure. I didn't just "bail." I tried to work it out, and I
tried to seek counseling, but I couldn't do it alone (well, the
counseling
I
could have, but that would have had the same effect, he wanted a
Stepford
wife, I wasn't willing to be one).


From your own words in this post it is clear you did not make the effort
with conseling. It takes two willing individuals not one begging for it.

I *WAS* willing. When I had NO CONTROL over our finances, all I asked was
that he assure me we could afford the expense. I would have had no idea
whether it was true or not, but at that time I still trusted him. All he
had to do when I said I'd go if we could afford it was "Sure, we can afford
it." That's not begging, that's just giving information. When I offered
counseling, I KNEW we were dead broke (again, thanks to him) and the ONLY
way we could afford it was for him to give up one of his "luxuries." I had
already cut back everywhere else (we stopped going out, renting movies, etc.
and I cut back on groceries as much as I could and still feed us all), but
*HE* wasn't willing to give up *his* luxuries. As usual, only mine were
expendable.

And still, $50,000 was MINE before we were even married, so I still say
that
*I* should have gotten pretty much the complete contents of our
apartment,
since he spent it without my knowledge as soon as he got control over
it.


If the roles were reversed with him as the woman that took the 50k it
would
be the typical "you go girl". He walked out on you, "you go girl, take
him
for everything".

And you know what, I think *that* sucks, too. That's why if I was in that
situation again I'd insist on a pre-nup. And I think it's a good idea for
anyone who has more assets than their soon-to-be-spouse to do so. So that
stops happening. Because until it does, there will always be money-grubbers
like Anna Nicole Smith et. al. I'm no feminist. I just think that all
things should be equal. But by even THAT logic, I came out WAY behind. And
you know what else? I would take $0 child support if he'd agree to take her
half the year (and then DO it). As it stands I have her 313 days of the
year and he has her AT MOST 48 (more like two days/month usually, by HIS OWN
choice, not because of anything I do or did, our decree says he gets much
more than that, but he never takes it), so I take my child support check and
put it towards her future, so that at least he can rest assured I'm not
spending the money on my "new" family.

You seem like a reasonable person (unlike some who shall remain nameless).
However, I can't understand the ability of the people on this mg to twist
another's words so much that they mean something completely different than
what they say. My responses in line below yours (if you care to read them
and not just believe what you want).

--
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin
"Don" don@free wrote in message ...

"Krista" wrote in message
m...
Actually, twice counseling was suggested, once by me and once by him.
When
we'd been married about 6 months I started talking to an old boyfriend
(really old, like five years before, he was the father of my first
child,
who was relinquished), we were both married, with kids (well, I had one
on
the way).

We talked about our past, how my mom split us up, and what would have
happened if that hadn't been the case. All innocent stuff, but my ex
took
it like I was cheating on him and ordered me not to speak to the guy
again.


Not an unreasonable thing to ask. If it was him talking to a
ex-girlfriend
most women would have an issue with that.

I didn't. He talked to MANY of his ex-girlfriends. He was friends with
many of them and went out places with them at times, WITHOUT ME. But when
all I did was email and IM with an old boyfriend of MINE who lived on the
other side of the country, he freaked. Not exactly cut-and-dried, is it?

First of all, I take orders from no one, and second, the guy and I
shared
a
child, albeit one neither of us had seen in years. He sent me packing
to
my
parents house telling me he'd "take me back" if I told my parents "the
truth." He thought they'd side with him, but they didn't.

They thought he was being insecure, that all my communications with my
old
boyfriend were completely free of any innuendo, even after my ex showed
them
the emails and IM transcripts. I guess that was when I first knew we
had
a
"problem." He suggested counseling, and I said I didn't think we could
afford it, but sure, if he thought we could. I never heard about it
again.


He again sounds totally reasonable. You were talking to your ex-boyfriend
no matter how innoncent it may have been it is understandable why a
husband
would have a problem with it. He then offers counseling but you bring up
affordability.. This guy would have to be a total wuss to insist on it at
this point since the ball was in your court to push the issue with
counseling. Did you want him to beg? geez.

He had complete control of our finances. I kinda suspected that we were
basically broke even though he made a good salary, but I didn't *kno2*
anything about our finances. All he had to say was, we can afford it. Not
beg, just say we could afford it. That's not that hard is it? Except one
of two things: 1) HE knew we couldn't afford it unless he gave up one of his
"extras", or 2) HE wasn't really interested in counseling, he was just
offering it to "do the right thing." Refer to previous paragraph about why
talking to an ex boyfriend is NOT something he should have had a problem
with.

Fast forward 7 months... Our daughter was six months old and I was
afraid
to leave him alone with her. I left for my parents' house, a trial
separation, I told him. He called me every day begging me to come back,
and
after a week, I finally did.

Things got better for a week and then they went back to the way they
were
before I left, so at the end of the month I left again, more determined
this
time. I lasted two weeks before returning. The house was a pig sty.
The
catbox hadn't been cleaned since I'd left, the kitchen and living room
were
full of dirty dishes, and the laundry room was full of dirty clothes,
including two women's shirts I found while sorting through the dirty
clothes. Shirts that did not belong to me and were not of a size to fit
my
mother or his.


This sounds typical of someone who has been hurt and in depression. The
girl leaves and everything goes to hell for awhile. You walked out after a
history of contact with an ex-boyfriend.

THE HOUSE WAS ALWAYS LIKE THAT UNLESS I CLEANED IT, EVEN THOUGH I WAS
WORKING MORE HOURS A DAY THAN HE WAS. Because in addition to my "real" job,
I was solely responsible for all care of our daughter, except the few times
I left her home alone with him. He NEVER cleaned up after himself. That
part was normal and had nothing to do with my leaving... Except that I
wasn't there to clean it up, so it just sat there. Again, I emailed and
IMed with him, and NOTHING ELSE, while at the same time my (then) husband
WENT OUT WITH his exes WITHOUT ME, because they were his "friends". And
*HE* should have "had a problem"? I don't see the logic there, sorry. He's
allowed to be friends with his exes and go places with them whitout me, but
I can't even TALK to my ex because it's inapproriate?

One time before when I'd been visiting my parents (a real visit, not a
trial
separation) he'd let a female friend of ours stay in our apartment, but
that
had been months before so I knew the clothes couldn't have been from
that,
which is what he tried to tell me. I gave him an ultimatum the next
day,
either the emotional abuse stopped or at the end of 30 days I was
leaving,
for real, and for good, and there would be no sex during that time (he'd
already tried to "trap" me by not using a condom when he said he was).
There would be no coming back or counseling or anything.

I suggested we go to counseling, but, because I was in control of the
finances since he'd spent all our money. I knew there was no way we
could
afford it unless he was willing to give up going out to lunch every day
at
work ($10/day) and or give up his weekly PlayStation games ($50+/week).
He
wasn't, so we didn't go.

To give him credit, he lasted a full two weeks that time, but one
afternoon
when I came home from running some errands he asked me if I wanted to go
out
to dinner (at a place I'd been dying to try). I said yes and went to
get
ready.

While I was fixing my hair he came up behind me and started kissing my
neck
and reached down to undo my pants. I told him no and he said "but I
want
to" and I said no, and he said "either we do or we don't go." I was
appalled that he thought I would do that just to go out to dinner and I
again told him no. He said, "Fine, I want a divorce then." I told him
"Sure, how do you want to do this?" I left the next day.


Typical reaction from a scorned lover in this case a male. You sound like
one cold chick.

Yeah? Well, that's your opinion. I didn't want to get pregnant again if
there was ANY chance I might be leaving. If he'd kept up being the guy he
was the two weeks prior to that incident, I would have stayed and then it
wouldn't have mattered. He only had 11 days left. I don't think asking him
to go without sex for 30 days while we try to reconcile is that harsh.
Especially considering I knew he was cheating on me (probably with one of
the exes I let him "hang out" with).

My parents lived about 3.5-4 hours from where he did and he didn't even
try
to see me or our daughter for 5 months. He emailed me every week or so,
trying to get me to come back, offering counseling, saying he knew we
couldn't afford it but his mom said she'd pay for it (yeah right, the
woman
hates me, always has, even when we were married).


He offers counseling again.

When it's too little, too late, yeah.

I had warned him that if I ever actually had had enough and left I would
never come back, I couldn't. And I didn't. After the September 11th
attacks he renewed his efforts although he'd been silent on that front
for
a
while, but by then I was starting to work through things and I wasn't
about
to go back.

I later found out how sure of himself he was. A friend of mine who I
hadn't
called before I left, called asking for me. He told her I'd left but
that
I'd "be back in just a week or two, you'll see."


This is typical of some people, how they react when lover walks out on
them.

Okay, so he reacted normally. I said he was a jerk, not a non-human.

And then there's the $400 that mysteriously "disappeared" from our bank
account that last time I visited my parents before actually leaving him.
I'm sure he spent it on the woman to whom the shirts belonged, and I
know
he
went shopping at our local sex toy shop with her, so I imagine that's
where
it went.

So now you have a bigger picture. Still not the whole thing, but a
bigger
picture for sure. I didn't just "bail." I tried to work it out, and I
tried to seek counseling, but I couldn't do it alone (well, the
counseling
I
could have, but that would have had the same effect, he wanted a
Stepford
wife, I wasn't willing to be one).


From your own words in this post it is clear you did not make the effort
with conseling. It takes two willing individuals not one begging for it.

I *WAS* willing. When I had NO CONTROL over our finances, all I asked was
that he assure me we could afford the expense. I would have had no idea
whether it was true or not, but at that time I still trusted him. All he
had to do when I said I'd go if we could afford it was "Sure, we can afford
it." That's not begging, that's just giving information. When I offered
counseling, I KNEW we were dead broke (again, thanks to him) and the ONLY
way we could afford it was for him to give up one of his "luxuries." I had
already cut back everywhere else (we stopped going out, renting movies, etc.
and I cut back on groceries as much as I could and still feed us all), but
*HE* wasn't willing to give up *his* luxuries. As usual, only mine were
expendable.

And still, $50,000 was MINE before we were even married, so I still say
that
*I* should have gotten pretty much the complete contents of our
apartment,
since he spent it without my knowledge as soon as he got control over
it.


If the roles were reversed with him as the woman that took the 50k it
would
be the typical "you go girl". He walked out on you, "you go girl, take
him
for everything".

And you know what, I think *that* sucks, too. That's why if I was in that
situation again I'd insist on a pre-nup. And I think it's a good idea for
anyone who has more assets than their soon-to-be-spouse to do so. So that
stops happening. Because until it does, there will always be money-grubbers
like Anna Nicole Smith et. al. I'm no feminist. I just think that all
things should be equal. But by even THAT logic, I came out WAY behind. And
you know what else? I would take $0 child support if he'd agree to take her
half the year (and then DO it). As it stands I have her 313 days of the
year and he has her AT MOST 48 (more like two days/month usually, by HIS OWN
choice, not because of anything I do or did, our decree says he gets much
more than that, but he never takes it), so I take my child support check and
put it towards her future, so that at least he can rest assured I'm not
spending the money on my "new" family.

Bob wrote:
Krista wrote:
Really? And your degree in Psychology is from? And I would like to see
the
research that says that a hostile two-parent family is better than a
happy
single-parent family.... Because I've seen loads of research that flies
in
the face of that. That, in fact, children who live with two parents who
can't stand each other and live with the "daily doses of hostility" are
actually WORSE off even than those in single-mother households.

LOL. Despite what they tell you in "women's studies" hate class,
children are statistically better off, in every measurable statistic, in
homes with their fathers than in homes with single mothers.

A single mother home is almost twice as likely for violent child abuse,
including murder, for example.

If you cared about the children, and couldn't stand the father, their
best statistical probability would be for YOU to leave, and leave them
behind.

Yeah, except that I couldn't trust him to care for her properly. The few
times I left her with him, I left a happy baby and came home to a screaming,
soiled infant. He never changed a diaper, even if I wasn't home to do it.
Oh wait, he did once because we were getting ready to go somewhere and I was
getting ready myself and told him that I wouldn't leave until her diaper was
changed. He knew we'd be late if he waited for me to get done and change
it, so he did actually change that one. But he never changed her while I
was out.

For heaven's sake, one night while I was in the bathroom she almost choked.
What do you think would have happened if I hadn't been there to notice and
called out to him (FIVE times before he paid attention to me)?

Yeah, I should have just left her with him to die or be neglected. You're
just full of good ideas, Bob.

It was Psych of SEX ROLES, not "women's studies" and it was taught by a MAN
and the books were written BY MEN. Not quite what you thought, huh?

--
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin

Bob wrote:
Krista wrote:
Really? And your degree in Psychology is from? And I would like to see
the
research that says that a hostile two-parent family is better than a
happy
single-parent family.... Because I've seen loads of research that flies
in
the face of that. That, in fact, children who live with two parents who
can't stand each other and live with the "daily doses of hostility" are
actually WORSE off even than those in single-mother households.

LOL. Despite what they tell you in "women's studies" hate class,
children are statistically better off, in every measurable statistic, in
homes with their fathers than in homes with single mothers.

A single mother home is almost twice as likely for violent child abuse,
including murder, for example.

If you cared about the children, and couldn't stand the father, their
best statistical probability would be for YOU to leave, and leave them
behind.

Yeah, except that I couldn't trust him to care for her properly. The few
times I left her with him, I left a happy baby and came home to a screaming,
soiled infant. He never changed a diaper, even if I wasn't home to do it.
Oh wait, he did once because we were getting ready to go somewhere and I was
getting ready myself and told him that I wouldn't leave until her diaper was
changed. He knew we'd be late if he waited for me to get done and change
it, so he did actually change that one. But he never changed her while I
was out.

For heaven's sake, one night while I was in the bathroom she almost choked.
What do you think would have happened if I hadn't been there to notice and
called out to him (FIVE times before he paid attention to me)?

Yeah, I should have just left her with him to die or be neglected. You're
just full of good ideas, Bob.

It was Psych of SEX ROLES, not "women's studies" and it was taught by a MAN
and the books were written BY MEN. Not quite what you thought, huh?

--
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin

Bob wrote:
Krista wrote:
Really? And your degree in Psychology is from? And I would like to see
the
research that says that a hostile two-parent family is better than a
happy
single-parent family.... Because I've seen loads of research that flies
in
the face of that. That, in fact, children who live with two parents who
can't stand each other and live with the "daily doses of hostility" are
actually WORSE off even than those in single-mother households.

LOL. Despite what they tell you in "women's studies" hate class,
children are statistically better off, in every measurable statistic, in
homes with their fathers than in homes with single mothers.

A single mother home is almost twice as likely for violent child abuse,
including murder, for example.

If you cared about the children, and couldn't stand the father, their
best statistical probability would be for YOU to leave, and leave them
behind.

Yeah, except that I couldn't trust him to care for her properly. The few
times I left her with him, I left a happy baby and came home to a screaming,
soiled infant. He never changed a diaper, even if I wasn't home to do it.
Oh wait, he did once because we were getting ready to go somewhere and I was
getting ready myself and told him that I wouldn't leave until her diaper was
changed. He knew we'd be late if he waited for me to get done and change
it, so he did actually change that one. But he never changed her while I
was out.

For heaven's sake, one night while I was in the bathroom she almost choked.
What do you think would have happened if I hadn't been there to notice and
called out to him (FIVE times before he paid attention to me)?

Yeah, I should have just left her with him to die or be neglected. You're
just full of good ideas, Bob.

It was Psych of SEX ROLES, not "women's studies" and it was taught by a MAN
and the books were written BY MEN. Not quite what you thought, huh?

--
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin

Krista wrote:
Bob wrote:

Krista wrote:

Really? And your degree in Psychology is from? And I would like to see

the

research that says that a hostile two-parent family is better than a

happy

single-parent family.... Because I've seen loads of research that flies

in

the face of that. That, in fact, children who live with two parents who
can't stand each other and live with the "daily doses of hostility" are
actually WORSE off even than those in single-mother households.

LOL. Despite what they tell you in "women's studies" hate class,
children are statistically better off, in every measurable statistic, in
homes with their fathers than in homes with single mothers.

A single mother home is almost twice as likely for violent child abuse,
including murder, for example.

If you cared about the children, and couldn't stand the father, their
best statistical probability would be for YOU to leave, and leave them
behind.


Yeah, except that I couldn't trust him to care for her properly. The few
times I left her with him, I left a happy baby and came home to a screaming,
soiled infant. He never changed a diaper, even if I wasn't home to do it.
Oh wait, he did once because we were getting ready to go somewhere and I was
getting ready myself and told him that I wouldn't leave until her diaper was
changed. He knew we'd be late if he waited for me to get done and change
it, so he did actually change that one. But he never changed her while I
was out.

For heaven's sake, one night while I was in the bathroom she almost choked.
What do you think would have happened if I hadn't been there to notice and
called out to him (FIVE times before he paid attention to me)?

Yeah, I should have just left her with him to die or be neglected. You're
just full of good ideas, Bob.

It was Psych of SEX ROLES, not "women's studies" and it was taught by a MAN
and the books were written BY MEN. Not quite what you thought, huh?
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin



Despite all your feminist whining about men not raising children
"properly" the children are more likely to survive and prosper when
raised by their fathers.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Krista wrote:
Bob wrote:

Krista wrote:

Really? And your degree in Psychology is from? And I would like to see

the

research that says that a hostile two-parent family is better than a

happy

single-parent family.... Because I've seen loads of research that flies

in

the face of that. That, in fact, children who live with two parents who
can't stand each other and live with the "daily doses of hostility" are
actually WORSE off even than those in single-mother households.

LOL. Despite what they tell you in "women's studies" hate class,
children are statistically better off, in every measurable statistic, in
homes with their fathers than in homes with single mothers.

A single mother home is almost twice as likely for violent child abuse,
including murder, for example.

If you cared about the children, and couldn't stand the father, their
best statistical probability would be for YOU to leave, and leave them
behind.


Yeah, except that I couldn't trust him to care for her properly. The few
times I left her with him, I left a happy baby and came home to a screaming,
soiled infant. He never changed a diaper, even if I wasn't home to do it.
Oh wait, he did once because we were getting ready to go somewhere and I was
getting ready myself and told him that I wouldn't leave until her diaper was
changed. He knew we'd be late if he waited for me to get done and change
it, so he did actually change that one. But he never changed her while I
was out.

For heaven's sake, one night while I was in the bathroom she almost choked.
What do you think would have happened if I hadn't been there to notice and
called out to him (FIVE times before he paid attention to me)?

Yeah, I should have just left her with him to die or be neglected. You're
just full of good ideas, Bob.

It was Psych of SEX ROLES, not "women's studies" and it was taught by a MAN
and the books were written BY MEN. Not quite what you thought, huh?
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin



Despite all your feminist whining about men not raising children
"properly" the children are more likely to survive and prosper when
raised by their fathers.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Krista wrote:
Bob wrote:

Krista wrote:

Really? And your degree in Psychology is from? And I would like to see

the

research that says that a hostile two-parent family is better than a

happy

single-parent family.... Because I've seen loads of research that flies

in

the face of that. That, in fact, children who live with two parents who
can't stand each other and live with the "daily doses of hostility" are
actually WORSE off even than those in single-mother households.

LOL. Despite what they tell you in "women's studies" hate class,
children are statistically better off, in every measurable statistic, in
homes with their fathers than in homes with single mothers.

A single mother home is almost twice as likely for violent child abuse,
including murder, for example.

If you cared about the children, and couldn't stand the father, their
best statistical probability would be for YOU to leave, and leave them
behind.


Yeah, except that I couldn't trust him to care for her properly. The few
times I left her with him, I left a happy baby and came home to a screaming,
soiled infant. He never changed a diaper, even if I wasn't home to do it.
Oh wait, he did once because we were getting ready to go somewhere and I was
getting ready myself and told him that I wouldn't leave until her diaper was
changed. He knew we'd be late if he waited for me to get done and change
it, so he did actually change that one. But he never changed her while I
was out.

For heaven's sake, one night while I was in the bathroom she almost choked.
What do you think would have happened if I hadn't been there to notice and
called out to him (FIVE times before he paid attention to me)?

Yeah, I should have just left her with him to die or be neglected. You're
just full of good ideas, Bob.

It was Psych of SEX ROLES, not "women's studies" and it was taught by a MAN
and the books were written BY MEN. Not quite what you thought, huh?
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin



Despite all your feminist whining about men not raising children
"properly" the children are more likely to survive and prosper when
raised by their fathers.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

"GudGye11" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kenneth S."
writes:

Anyone reading Krista's message below cannot help but be struck by
the
vocabulary she uses. For example, she's a "survivor" of many
"emotionally
abusive" relationships. This is the victim mindset that has been
encouraged
by the modern-day feminist movement. It's been cynically used to gain
advantages for women over men -- destroying many families in the process,
and inflicting serious damage on children.

What in heck in "emotional abuse?"

snip

Yeah, and what in the hell is "financial abuse?" He wouldn't come through
with
her weekly allowance? He made her pay for her share of the household
expenses?
He took her to Arby's on their anniversary, instead of a nice restaurant?

I'd like Krista to define "financial abuse."

Financial abuse is taking complete control of the household finances and
shutting the other person out of all decision-making, spending, and
knowledge of said.

In my case, it included spending $50,000 of my NON-marital property while we
were married without my consent or prior knowledge.

I didn't get a weekly allowance. I told him what I wanted to spend every
DIME of money I asked him for on and HE determined whether it was "worth it"
or not. I had NO discretionary funds until 3 months before I left, and that
only because we were completely broke and he thought I could pull our butts
out of the fire.

I paid MORE than "my share" of the household finances since I worked AND he
spent my $50,000. I made $20,000 (or so) working and he spent $50,000
(non-taxable), so I "made" $70,000 and HE made (after taxes) $27,000, so you
tell me who paid more of the family finances?

He didn't take me anywhere on our anniversary. I wanted to go to my folks
house and leave our daughter with them to go out to dinner (the first time
we would have done so since her birth), but he didn't want to make the 4
hour trip (I proposed we spend the night at his folks' house or mine), so we
didn't go anywhere. The next time our anniversary came around we were
separated and frankly, I didn't even think about it or him until late in the
evening when I realized it had been our 2nd anniversary that day.

--
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin