10 ways to be a better father

dragonlady ) writes:
In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

dragonlady ) writes:
In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

toto ) writes:
On 26 Nov 2003 05:17:58 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

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 agree.

Already said that I favor changing the law so that DNA testing would
be done at birth - that would prevent fooling the man.

OK...

All things equal, then, you believe it is ok for both to fool around
absent the woman getting pregnant or either bringing home stds.

Are you *retarded* ? Thats NOT what I believe at all, and I have
*repeatedly* spcified what I do believe.

You keep MS-stating, IOW, LYING, about my views.

Stop it, troll.

I don't think that works unless both partners are honest and
aware and have an open marriage. If the original commitment
was to monogamy and an exclusive commitment, then the
betrayal is there even if there are no stds or pregnancies involved.

NO ONE other than you nimrods said differently...

Bob did.

Bob has consistently said that he doesn't think adultry hurts a
marriage.

So ? Read very closely.... I'M NOT BOB.

Got that yet ?

Of course -- I can usually tell men apart. I was responding directly to
YOUR statement that "NO ONE other than you nimrods said differently."
Since I don't THINK you include Bob in your list of "nimrods", I was
pointing out that, indeed, someone other than "us nimrods" had, indeed,
said differently.

Because his stuff is often the same old, I often skip past Bob's
stuff.

And, as has been said, time and again, when foolish feminists
insist on claiming that Bob's views speak for us all, I simply
point out that each person is only responisble for their
statements.

I was also speaking of you non-soc.men posters.

And, my view is this: Adultery is wrong, immoral, evil, and not
amenable to excusing, though, IF the adulterer repents, the
marriage can be saved.

Glad to hear it. I agree, with the caveat that if both parties have
agreed IN ADVANCE that the marriage is not to be monogomous, and the
person having sex outside of the relationship follows whatever
groundrules have been agreed upon by both parties, whether you call it
adultery or not, it can be OK. Personally, I can't imagine being in an
"open marriage", and can only barely imagine being in a "group
marriage", for some folks those arrangements do seem to work.

Well, thats an issue that the couple would have to mutually agree to.
And, unless specifics were made clear what would happen if the
women's wanderings caused her to be preggers, no specificity means
no agreement.

So, no matetr *how many exceptional clauses* you want to throw
in, a woman's affair, resulting in the husband not only being
cuckolded, but also made to, fraudulently believe that the child
is his, *when it isn't*, is evil *beyond ANY illicit affair*.

Period.

Andre

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

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:33:26 -0700, Bob wrote:

toto wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:32:11 -0700, Bob wrote:


You undermine your claim to stand for equality in relationships and
support for polyamory when you refer to the men as having affairs, and
the women as "out whoring".


What would you call it if you weren't beating around the bush?


Both men and women have affairs.

Or both men and women are *out whoring*

It's the same for both, Bob.


--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits



Another grammar flame. How enlightened.

Bob

It isn't a flame and it's not about grammar.

It's about using the same language - either approving,
disapproving or neutral for both genders. It's not your
grammar that is at fault, but your attitude toward the
acts which is different depending on the gender of the
person acting.


--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits

dragonlady ) writes:
In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

dragonlady ) writes:
In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

Banty ) writes:

Oh sure. Especially that men needn't be sexually faithful to their
lives,
but it's a sin and crime if a woman isn't. Among many other things.

Its so cute to see that you all, now that you've utterly FAILED to
prevail in debate, have now resorted to mutual masturbation fests,
where you decry what *you wish we had said*....

The position you just MS-stated is simply that while either spouse
having an affair is *wrong*,

For the record, you and Bob seem to disagree on this.

For the record, *I* am the final arbiter of my beliefs, thank you
very much.

While he DID refer to a woman having an affair as "whoring around", he
also said he believes that affairs do not damage the marriage.

Fine. IF thats his view, then... take that up with *him*.

when the wife *makes a baby from said
affair and passes the baby off, fraudulently, as the husband's*,
that that is a *greater crime/harm*, including to the *deceived
child*.

I'd also argue that ANYONE making a baby with a person outside of their
marriage, absent a prior agreement to do so, creates some harm.

Waffle. The women making a child outside the marriage *and then passing
it off as the HUSBAND'S BIO CHILD is doing FAR MORE HARM*.

I didn't say it was the greatest harm -- only that it was also harmful.

Indeed, and I understand 8why* you threw in that *irrelevancy*.

Because you *don't want to admit* that the consequences of a woman's
adultery can be *more evil* then any man's affairs' consequences can
be.

Especially under the current legal system, if a man makes a baby with
someone else, and that person sues for child support and wins, the
husband has created a situation where money is being taken away from
his primary family.

Yes, but NOT from his wife's *income*. But, a child that *she makes
via her affair*, often *does take money out of the income of the
cuckolded husband ( See " Presumption Of Paternity laws " ).

(I AM NOT SAYING THE CURRENT LEGAL SYSTEM IS RIGHT,
only that that's the way Real Life works right now.)

Non sequitur. NO ONE but you is arguing this.

Well, whenever I point out how 'real life' works, you seem to assume
that I think that's the way it OUGHT to work, so I feel compelled to be
very careful and clear when I am commenting on how the current system is
set up.

Listen very closely: WE KNOW THAT !

Clear ? Thats NOT THE TOPIC.

If all you have to offer up is " this is how it is now ", then
please desist, as you're adding NOTHING relevent.

By the way, you might check out the meaning of non sequitur -- that
wasn't one.

Grammar flame. Next is " The lurkers support me in e-mail. "

laughs

Clearly, further harm is created when the parentage is lied about, and
that is something only a woman can get away with.

Finally, its like pulling teeth to get you to address the *greatest
harm*...

Neither I, nor anyone else on this thread, has EVER argued that a woman
passing a child off as the offspring of her husband when it is NOT his
child is anything but evil. A horrid thing to do. Just not OK. Wrong.

I'm not sure why you seem incapable of hearing us say that.

Because youse all post thousands of words trying NOT to say that,
and trying to *somehow equate the man's affair's consequences as
being the same*...

That just shows me that you do NOT view men and women equally...

Since you're very fast to decry men's deeds, and extremely
reluctant to even comment on *women's*...

I've commented (frequently) on when I think a woman's behavior in
despicable.

Not with the finality as you've commented on men's...

Can you ever decry men's deeds when THEY are wrong?

I HAVE in *this thread*.... DUH !

Andre

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

dragonlady ) writes:
In article , Bob
wrote:

Andre Lieven wrote:
Its so cute to see that you all, now that you've utterly FAILED to
prevail in debate, have now resorted to mutual masturbation fests,
where you decry what *you wish we had said*....

They always do that. The femroids need to reassure each other to keep
from having to think about how bigoted their beliefs are.

Bob

Unlike the folks from soc.men, who never resort to just talking to each
other to reinforce their bizarre beliefs. . .

Your retardation is once again on display for all...

Free Clue: " reassure each other " and " talking to each other " are
NOT synonyms.

Now, take that ESL class and.... *pass it*...

Prof. Andre

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

In article , Bob
wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
In article , Bob
wrote:


dragonlady wrote:

Bob did.

Bob has consistently said that he doesn't think adultry hurts a marriage.

Uh, no. That wasn't what Bob said. Bob said that adultry often doesn't
hurt a marriage as much as jealousy, spite, vindictiveness, malice,
feminism, and *******s.

You would probably be better posting your own opinion and not trying to
paraphrase someone else's opinion.

Bob




Bob, you demanded that I show that adultery hurt a marriage, and
insisted that there was no harm if the person wasn't caught.

Bob suggests that you take a remedial reading class as well as
restricting yourself to posting your own opinions.

Bob pointed out that dragonlady can not point to any particular harm
that adultery (of itself) does to a marriage.

Dragonlady posted the strawman about "no harm if the person wasn't
caught." Your straw man argument is your own.



If I misunderstood you, please clarify: is adultery harmful to a
marriage? Does it make a difference to you if it is a man committing
adultery or a woman?

Bob has consistently advocated equal rights and equal responsibilities.

But Bob said that, in the case that Rosalee posted, the man had DONE NO
HARM to the marriage by committing adultery. I asked for clarification,
since you said it caused NO harm -- not that it caused less than the
harm caused by the aftermath, which included a divorce.


Adultery (by itself) often cause less harm than jealousy, spite,
vindictiveness, malice, feminism, and *******s. Dragonlady could not
point to any harm that adultery does other than providing a convenient
excuse for jealousy, spite, vindictiveness, malice, feminism, and *******s.


I said nothing of the sort. I talked about the need for trust and
honesty in relationships, and pointed to the benefit to the children of
living in a house where the parents trust each other, and are honest
with each other.

In real life adultery is not all bad nor all good, nor the same in every
situation. In some dried up boring marriages adultery may add spice and
excitement to one partner who brings the renewed sexual energy home to
the marriage. It can help to "get your battery charged" and be a boon to
a marriage. In others situations it may provide an excuse for a
feminist looking for a reason to leave her boring marriage and justify
(in her mind) hurting her children.

You make it sound as though men never leave marriages when they find out
their wives are violating their vows!


Bob finds that moralizing and criticizing generally doesn't consider the
particular situation and often only adds to the potential for harm.



Assume that there are NO children conceived or STD's brought into the
marriage. Assume, if you like, that they don't get caught. Is adultery
under those circumstances wrong and/or harmful to the marriage?
meh

Neither always harmful, nor always helpful. See above.

Note: Bob is not Christian and generally does not recognize the moral
dictates of that religions as given or "truth." Moral values often
vary a lot from one religion to the next, and quite often come down to
"do what you're told."

Bob

Given that almost no one here has used the word "sin" or appealed to
religion in any way, I'm not sure why you feel compelled to add that
particular bit of trivia. The only reference to religion that *I*
recall was someone (not one of the people who has been prolific on this
thread, so I can't recall the name) congratulating Lady Jayne for
putting her husband at the head of their home, the way God intended.
Were there others I missed?

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

In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

dragonlady ) writes:
In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:


And, my view is this: Adultery is wrong, immoral, evil, and not
amenable to excusing, though, IF the adulterer repents, the
marriage can be saved.

Glad to hear it. I agree, with the caveat that if both parties have
agreed IN ADVANCE that the marriage is not to be monogomous, and the
person having sex outside of the relationship follows whatever
groundrules have been agreed upon by both parties, whether you call it
adultery or not, it can be OK. Personally, I can't imagine being in an
"open marriage", and can only barely imagine being in a "group
marriage", for some folks those arrangements do seem to work.

Well, thats an issue that the couple would have to mutually agree to.
And, unless specifics were made clear what would happen if the
women's wanderings caused her to be preggers, no specificity means
no agreement.

Do you want a similar agreement about what would happen if the man's
wanderings resulted in an unintended pregnancy? It's hard to speak
about this with authority, since I'm NOT polyamorous, but I would think
that both would be important.


So, no matetr *how many exceptional clauses* you want to throw
in, a woman's affair, resulting in the husband not only being
cuckolded, but also made to, fraudulently believe that the child
is his, *when it isn't*, is evil *beyond ANY illicit affair*.

Period.


I certainly don't recall arguing anything different. Nor can I recall
anyone else arguing anything different. I'm not sure why you want to
hear us saying you are wrong about that: everyone here agrees that
having an affair and then lying about the paternity of a resulting child
is a horrible thing to do. Hell, even if it's not from an affair, but
the result of a single woman having multiple sex partners, it's wrong to
deliberately lie to a man about being the father of a child.

Hell, I think it's generally wrong to NOT tell a man that he is a
father. Men have the right to know when they have sired a child, and
generally speaking a right to father that child.

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

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, dragonlady wrote:

I certainly don't recall arguing anything different. Nor can I recall
anyone else arguing anything different. I'm not sure why you want to
hear us saying you are wrong about that:

Well, to justify the bullying they try to pass off as debate.
I
everyone here agrees that
having an affair and then lying about the paternity of a resulting child
is a horrible thing to do. Hell, even if it's not from an affair, but
the result of a single woman having multiple sex partners, it's wrong to
deliberately lie to a man about being the father of a child.

Hell, I think it's generally wrong to NOT tell a man that he is a
father. Men have the right to know when they have sired a child, and
generally speaking a right to father that child.

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

dragonlady wrote:
In article , Bob
wrote:


dragonlady wrote:

In article , Bob
wrote:



dragonlady wrote:


Bob did.

Bob has consistently said that he doesn't think adultry hurts a marriage.

Uh, no. That wasn't what Bob said. Bob said that adultry often doesn't
hurt a marriage as much as jealousy, spite, vindictiveness, malice,
feminism, and *******s.

You would probably be better posting your own opinion and not trying to
paraphrase someone else's opinion.

Bob




Bob, you demanded that I show that adultery hurt a marriage, and
insisted that there was no harm if the person wasn't caught.

Bob suggests that you take a remedial reading class as well as
restricting yourself to posting your own opinions.

Bob pointed out that dragonlady can not point to any particular harm
that adultery (of itself) does to a marriage.

Dragonlady posted the strawman about "no harm if the person wasn't
caught." Your straw man argument is your own.




If I misunderstood you, please clarify: is adultery harmful to a
marriage? Does it make a difference to you if it is a man committing
adultery or a woman?

Bob has consistently advocated equal rights and equal responsibilities.


But Bob said that, in the case that Rosalee posted, the man had DONE NO
HARM to the marriage by committing adultery. I asked for clarification,
since you said it caused NO harm -- not that it caused less than the
harm caused by the aftermath, which included a divorce.


Are you dense as a board deliberately, or do you have to work at it.
Rosalee described no harm to the family in her story. Dragonlady leapt
to a general strawman, "Bob says that adultery causes no harm."

An IQ of 46, and a gift at that. Knotty pine has more sense.



Adultery (by itself) often cause less harm than jealousy, spite,
vindictiveness, malice, feminism, and *******s. Dragonlady could not
point to any harm that adultery does other than providing a convenient
excuse for jealousy, spite, vindictiveness, malice, feminism, and *******s.


I said nothing of the sort. I talked about the need for trust and
honesty in relationships, and pointed to the benefit to the children of
living in a house where the parents trust each other, and are honest
with each other.


In real life adultery is not all bad nor all good, nor the same in every
situation. In some dried up boring marriages adultery may add spice and
excitement to one partner who brings the renewed sexual energy home to
the marriage. It can help to "get your battery charged" and be a boon to
a marriage. In others situations it may provide an excuse for a
feminist looking for a reason to leave her boring marriage and justify
(in her mind) hurting her children.


You make it sound as though men never leave marriages when they find out
their wives are violating their vows!

Since the corruption of common social institutions by feminist
philosophy and tactics, women leave husbands and break up families many
times more often than men. Compared to today's women, men seldom leave
marriages for any reason.


Bob finds that moralizing and criticizing generally doesn't consider the
particular situation and often only adds to the potential for harm.


Assume that there are NO children conceived or STD's brought into the
marriage. Assume, if you like, that they don't get caught. Is adultery
under those circumstances wrong and/or harmful to the marriage?
meh

Neither always harmful, nor always helpful. See above.

Note: Bob is not Christian and generally does not recognize the moral
dictates of that religions as given or "truth." Moral values often
vary a lot from one religion to the next, and quite often come down to
"do what you're told."


Given that almost no one here has used the word "sin" or appealed to
religion in any way, I'm not sure why you feel compelled to add that
particular bit of trivia.


Several people have said flatly "adultery is wrong" out of hand without
considering circumstances. It comes out of Jewsish/Christian/Moslem
religious dogma. Many other religions and other societies have
different moral values.


The only reference to religion that *I*
recall was someone (not one of the people who has been prolific on this
thread, so I can't recall the name) congratulating Lady Jayne for
putting her husband at the head of their home, the way God intended.
Were there others I missed?
meh

A large part of any religion is its moral and ethical values and rules.
The "adultery is wrong" comes from the Jewish/Christian "10
Commandments" that most of American culture has adopted, and the
"non-christians" have generally not bothered to consider because its
culturally dominant. You don't have to say "Jesus" to repeat
Jewish/Chiristian religious teachings.

Bob

dragonlady ) writes:
In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

toto ) writes:
On 26 Nov 2003 19:13:30 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

The word maybe means just what it says. She has not yet
decided on yes or no.

ROTFLMAO ! As I've likely dated and slept with far more women than
you have, I'd say that you're not in a position to understand this
topic.

This is true, since I never dated a woman. You may even have dated
more men than I have for all I know. So what?

First, there you go, with the Common Festering Femmeroid Tactic
of insinuating gayness in an opponent. Thats deceitful of you.

Man, now I have to clean my keyboard again; you should warn a person
before you are about to say something hysterically funny! And here I
thought you didn't have a sense of humor.

Oh, so you now want to claim that you *didn't* try to " gay-tag "
me, as an ad hom ?

Retarded *and* dishonest is no way for you to go through life....

Second, when dating habits are the topic, those who have *actually
dated the targetted demographic* are the *ones who can speak from
experience*.

You base *your* actions on the person's words, not on your ability
to mind read her intentions otherwise you are probably going to miss
the boat.

Dr. Phil: " 87% of all communication is non-verbal. "

Consider your current *error* corrected.

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

dragonlady ) writes:
In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

dragonlady ) writes:
In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

And, my view is this: Adultery is wrong, immoral, evil, and not
amenable to excusing, though, IF the adulterer repents, the
marriage can be saved.

Glad to hear it. I agree, with the caveat that if both parties have
agreed IN ADVANCE that the marriage is not to be monogomous, and the
person having sex outside of the relationship follows whatever
groundrules have been agreed upon by both parties, whether you call it
adultery or not, it can be OK. Personally, I can't imagine being in an
"open marriage", and can only barely imagine being in a "group
marriage", for some folks those arrangements do seem to work.

Well, thats an issue that the couple would have to mutually agree to.
And, unless specifics were made clear what would happen if the
women's wanderings caused her to be preggers, no specificity means
no agreement.

Do you want a similar agreement about what would happen if the man's
wanderings resulted in an unintended pregnancy? It's hard to speak
about this with authority, since I'm NOT polyamorous, but I would think
that both would be important.

There already exists in law, such a thing: Its that only the actual
bio parents are deemed responsible ( We'll leave aside the fact that
the guy likely didn't choose for there to be a child... ), so the
cheated on wife *aon't and can't* be made legally responsible for
such a child.

While many US states have Presumption Of *Paternity* laws, *none*
have anything like a Presumption Of *Maternity* law...

So, no matter *how many exceptional clauses* you want to throw
in, a woman's affair, resulting in the husband not only being
cuckolded, but also made to, fraudulently believe that the child
is his, *when it isn't*, is evil *beyond ANY illicit affair*.

Period.

I certainly don't recall arguing anything different.

LOL ! Then, your memory is deeply faulty, as you, on more than one
occasion, tried to hand wave away the Paternity FRAUD that ONLY
a cheating WOMAN can commit, as being somehow " equivalent " to
what a cheating husband could stick his wife with, which is both
sexist *and* absurd.

Nor can I recall anyone else arguing anything different.

There are medications for your condition...

I'm not sure why you want to
hear us saying you are wrong about that: everyone here agrees that
having an affair and then lying about the paternity of a resulting child
is a horrible thing to do.

But, you *don't want to admit* that, not only is it a violation of
the child ( For whom you all raise such a stink for, when a *man*
might withdraw from it, for cause ), but a *unique violation* of
the cuckolded *husband*, the likes of which is unique, in direction
of which sex can only do it to which.

Hell, even if it's not from an affair, but
the result of a single woman having multiple sex partners, it's wrong to
deliberately lie to a man about being the father of a child.

Indeed.

Hell, I think it's generally wrong to NOT tell a man that he is a
father. Men have the right to know when they have sired a child, and
generally speaking a right to father that child.

No less than a woman to mother one, yes ?

Andre

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