PDA

View Full Version : How NOT to plan a wedding.



Pages : [1] 2

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-21, 02:54 PM
Get a load of this 'prize pair': http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucda/20070618/lf_ucda/greedycouplecashesinaftertheirweddingshower;_ylt=A lH2wkn19mjKVPev4r_BcWLMWM0F.


During the dinner, Ron and Barbie blatantly informed us that they had registered for expensive shower items (I had attended the shower) so they could return the gifts for cash. During the conversation, I mentioned I'd had my eye on a pricey vacuum cleaner I had seen advertised on TV. Barbie turned to her fiance and said, "Honey, we should have registered for that so we could return it for the cash!"

WOW.:naughty::eek:

I got married last year. I can't imagine the ruckus that would have ensued had hubby and I been this....mercenary.

Eek!

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 03:12 PM
This whole "registry" idea is a bad one. Come to think of it, marriage is a bad idea - who wants to be referred to as "hubby" for the rest of their life? :)

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-21, 03:24 PM
Hey, if you think 'hubby' is bad, you should hear some of the other 'love names' my poor husband has to put up with. ;)

That's ok. He texted me this lovely message one time: 'Loves my boo and her magical poo'

I am his 'boo'. :rolleyes:

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 03:27 PM
Hey, if you think 'hubby' is bad, you should hear some of the other 'love names' my poor husband has to put up with. ;)

That's ok. He texted me this lovely message one time: 'Loves my boo and her magical poo'

I am his 'boo'. :rolleyes:

Nooooooooo! You broke the Goofy Meter again! :hand::)

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 03:48 PM
Goofy Meter: I increased the tolerance from 100 Clarabelles to 200 Clarabelles but you still broke it. I will have to redesign it - change from linear to logarithmic scale.

Matherly
2007-Jun-21, 03:49 PM
I got married last year. I can't imagine the ruckus that would have ensued had hubby and I been this....mercenary.

And I thought I was being a bit of a schmuck for registering for a Playstation back when I was getting married.

(Of course, my co-workers went out and actually got it for me! I enjoyed the hell outta it until I got a next generation consol)

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-21, 03:49 PM
Oh, I wasn't even trying that time...;)

Matherly
2007-Jun-21, 03:50 PM
who wants to be referred to as "hubby" for the rest of their life? :)

I like Joe Strazynski's (of Babylon 5 fame) pet name for his wife.

Spousal Overunit

Has the added benifit of being non-gendered.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 03:56 PM
I like Joe Strazynski's (of Babylon 5 fame) pet name for his wife.

Spousal Overunit

Has the added benefit of being non-gendered.

Good one! :)

I prefer Ball-and-Chain but it isn't healthy - last time I used it I had a severe headache for days....

Noclevername
2007-Jun-21, 03:57 PM
See, this is why I'm single, I'm no good at coming up with nicknames....

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-21, 04:04 PM
And I thought I was being a bit of a schmuck for registering for a Playstation back when I was getting married.

Well, we did register when we got engaged, but only because it's one of the 'things to do' on the list. Some of the gifts we got were on the register; some weren't. We actually had trouble coming up with stuff to put on the register, because, when we want something, we usually just go out and buy it ourselves.

Most of the people who were at the wedding got us gifts, but some didn't. That was fine with us; we were just happy people came, given that we chose to get married in St. Thomas.

That's a jaunt and a bit from the States, and we had people coming from the UK, too. The plane fares weren't cheap. A lot of people couldn't make it, which was understandable given the expense of getting there. Some of the ones who came kept asking us what we wanted for our wedding gift.

I told all of my guests that being there to see us get married was enough of a gift. :)

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-21, 04:06 PM
See, this is why I'm single, I'm no good at coming up with nicknames....


How about....
Pookie? Lulu? Puper? Lover-doodle? Bubles? Lover-bu? Beary? Lover-bear?


I don't necessarily use any of those, course. ;)

Noclevername
2007-Jun-21, 04:06 PM
Pookie? Lulu? Puper? Lover-doodle? Bubles? Lover-bu? Beary? Lover-bear?


:sick::sick::sick:

ADDED: Is his name that hard to remember??

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-21, 04:08 PM
:sick::sick::sick:

ADDED: Is his name that hard to remember??

No...but when he starts talking about 'magical poo'....:lol:

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 04:10 PM
How about....
Pookie? Lulu? Puper? Lover-doodle? Bubles? Lover-bu? Beary? Lover-bear?


I don't necessarily use any of those, course. ;)

Damn! Have to re-calibrate again. Now up to 300 Clarabelles.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 04:12 PM
No...but when he starts talking about 'magical poo'....:lol:

I hope we're talking about Winnie here. :(

Tog
2007-Jun-21, 04:14 PM
When I'm talking to the Girlfriend on the phone, and we're near people who can hear one side of the conversation, we will do the following exchange in increasing pitch until one of us breaks character.
I love you
I love you more
I love you more
No I love you more

By about the 8th one anyone that can leave has, then we tally up the score next time we talk.:lol:

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-21, 04:14 PM
Winnie who?:whistle:

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 04:17 PM
When I'm talking to the Girlfriend on the phone, and we're near people who can hear one side of the conversation, we will do the following exchange in increasing pitch until one of us breaks character.
I love you
I love you more
I love you more
No I love you more

By about the 8th one anyone that can leave has, then we tally up the score next time we talk.:lol:

Unless someone decides to put you out of your misery. :)

Noclevername
2007-Jun-21, 04:21 PM
No...but when he starts talking about 'magical poo'....:lol:

:eh:

:think:

You must've had Lucky Charms for breakfast, then.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 04:26 PM
We call one of our cats 'Pooh' - but he doesn't like it much either.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 04:27 PM
:eh:

:think:

You must've had Lucky Charms for breakfast, then.

ROTFLMAO - I'm gonna get fired. :lol::lol::lol:

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-21, 04:43 PM
ROTFLMAO - I'm gonna get fired. :lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Swift
2007-Jun-21, 05:06 PM
Damn! Have to re-calibrate again. Now up to 300 Clarabelles.
Better not test it out on my wife. She loves making up names for both me and the cat. I told her she should work for a drug company, making up drug names (such as Propecia).

Back to the start of this, a friend of my sister had a huge wedding (lots of guests, very expensive) and requested (though didn't demand) cash gifts, rather than things, with the hope that she would make money on the wedding. :doh: Forget the ethics, the plan failed miserably, I don't even think the total of cash and gifts covered her expenses and she and her husband went deeply in debt.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 05:13 PM
Back to the start of this, a friend of my sister had a huge wedding (lots of guests, very expensive) and requested (though didn't demand) cash gifts, rather than things, with the hope that she would make money on the wedding. :doh: Forget the ethics, the plan failed miserably, I don't even think the total of cash and gifts covered her expenses and she and her husband went deeply in debt.

I give cash for two reasons: (1) I'm lazy and don't feel like going down to the registry and (2) the newlyweds aren't going to remember three years from now who purchased things from the registry and who gave cash.

If you want to be remembered, buy them something that rates high on the Goofy Meter. :)

NEOWatcher
2007-Jun-21, 05:34 PM
If you want to be remembered, buy them something that rates high on the Goofy Meter. :)
Yep; I've been divorced for over a decade now, but I still remember who gave me that stupid clock on my mantle.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-21, 05:45 PM
At my sister's wedding, I gave cash. At my dad's remarriage, I showed up. Next one, I'll send a nice e-mail.

Matherly
2007-Jun-21, 06:01 PM
At my dad's remarriage, I showed up.

Hell, I wasn't even invited to my Dad's remarrage. 12 years latter, and 1 year since he divorced the... um... shrew, and I'm still bitter about it :evil:

Tobin Dax
2007-Jun-21, 06:19 PM
Let's see, for the last two weddings I've gone two (both of friends), there was something behind the gift, whether or not is was obvious.

For a good friend from high school, both him and his now-wife had each told me, independently, on the same day, that they spend too much money at Best Buy. Three months later when I got the invitation, the gift was obvious: Best Buy gift cards. I usually wouldn't get a gift card for a wedding gift, but I had to here. I can't remember if they got the joke or not.

The other one, I'm sure the joke was lost. It was for a friend from college, and he's a skinny guy. I'm not, and haven't been as long as we've known each other. I was looking at their registry online and just about lost it when I saw the bathroom scale. I couldn't resist the idea of a fat guy giving a skinny guy a weight scale. :D

My sister's getting married early next year. I have no idea what I'm going to do for her yet.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 06:23 PM
Hell, I wasn't even invited to my Dad's remarrage. 12 years latter, and 1 year since he divorced the... um... shrew, and I'm still bitter about it :evil:

Sounds like he was punished severely!

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 06:26 PM
At my sister's wedding, I gave cash. At my dad's remarriage, I showed up. Next one, I'll send a nice e-mail.

I haven't been to a wedding in years. Funerals are going to be the next big thing for me. :cry:

Doodler
2007-Jun-21, 06:27 PM
I haven't been to a wedding in years. Funerals are going to be the next big thing for me. :cry:

The last couple weddings I've been to I've ended up in the wedding party itself.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-21, 06:39 PM
This whole "registry" idea is a bad one. Come to think of it, marriage is a bad idea - who wants to be referred to as "hubby" for the rest of their life? :)

Allow me to defend the wedding registry a minute, speaking as a person who intends to register . . . someday, I hope.

You are not by any stretch required to get something that the person has registered for. Remember, for example, the episode of TNG where Miles and Keiko get married. Worf says his adoptive parents always get people (if I remember the episode correctly; I've not seen it in years) a crystal swan. I doubt anybody registers for a crystal swan. Gods know that if someone wanted to give me a wedding present that was funny--or, sure, cash--I wouldn't be upset.

The point of the registry is two-fold. Number one, help people who are bad at shopping narrow the list down. Or relatives who don't know you very well but are expected to be invited anyway. (That's pretty much my entire family right there.) Number two, prevent you from getting six toasters when those people think, "Hey! Everyone needs a toaster!"

Which is true. However, since I already own one, my toaster needs are met. No more toasters are necessary. (I know I'll get one, though; my ren faire boss gives everyone toasters.) I own a blender, a waffle iron, a deep fryer, and a hand mixer. I like to choose my own kitchen knives, and there's a very specific kind of dishes I prefer--and I want to start acquiring pieces of it so I can get rid of the mismatched dishes I have now, which means I don't want someone else's idea of what dishes I should have.

And, come to that, if people want to give dishes, I want them to give me Fiestaware of the right colours, not just any old dishes that I won't use--or will have to return. Because I, for one, think returning wedding presents is tacky. Which is part of the reason for registering in the first place.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 06:43 PM
Allow me to defend the wedding registry a minute, speaking as a person who intends to register . . . someday, I hope.


Don't hope for the end of your dignity! :lol:

Noclevername
2007-Jun-21, 06:44 PM
Cash always fits, never expires, and you don't need a reciept to return it. :)

Lurker
2007-Jun-21, 06:48 PM
The last thing I would ever want to do is getwithin 100 miles of my wedding... ;-)


Personally I prefer a handfasting... quiet, simple

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 06:48 PM
Cash always fits, never expires, and you don't need a reciept to return it. :)

Gillian! Oh Gillian! I see a boo-boo in the sentence above. :)

Larry Jacks
2007-Jun-21, 06:49 PM
When my wife and I got married 24 years ago (this weekend), we didn't have much money. Long before anyone had ever heard of Lorena Bobbit, she told me in very graphic terms what she'd do to me if I ever fooled around. Not only would I get the "full Bobbit" treatment, she planned on chopping it up and stir frying it. Certainly not a woman to mess with. Our first Christmas, I got her a good set of kitchen knives. It was my way of saying that I trusted her enough to arm her even in the face of her promises. Besides, we needed the knives.

When our youngest son (my stepson) got married, among other things, we got them a set of kitchen knives. We told them the story of the knives, saying "Jim, you've been warned. Heidi, you've been armed!" She appreciated the gesture. But then, we told our son that if they ever split, we're keeping Heidi. Eight years later, they're going strong.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-21, 06:49 PM
Gillian! Oh Gillian! I see a boo-boo in the sentence above. :)


I before E, except after... :doh:

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-21, 06:53 PM
I had been to so many weddings the year before I got married that I had a hard time planning ours. I was sick of weddings!

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 06:57 PM
When my wife and I got married 24 years ago (this weekend)

Congratulations!

If you need some time alone just do this . . .

When my wife reminds me how long we've been married, I stare at her, rub my chin, and say "I could have killed you and been out on parole by now."

Larry Jacks
2007-Jun-21, 07:01 PM
There's a joke about an old couple who were celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary. Someone asked them, "Did you ever consider divorce in all of those years?" They both replied, "Divorce? Never. Murder? Yes."

It's a good marriage. Hard to believe the years are going by so quickly.

Tog
2007-Jun-21, 07:20 PM
Speaking of toasters...

When one of the members of the AOL Room I used to frequent was getting married we had arranged to meet in Florida for the last of the gatherings I was able to attend. I had made (jokingly) that we all get her a toaster. One thing led to another and she ended up with 23 toasters, all from Wal-mart and all with a receipt so she could return them and get stuff she needed/wanted.

On the second one she had a "wow that's odd" look on her face, by the 5th it really dawned on her.:lol:

The punch line is that the one she kept because she actually did need one broke a week after she took the others back.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 07:29 PM
It's a good marriage. Hard to believe the years are going by so quickly.

Remember when you were a kid and someone said something like "6 months from now" and you thought that was an eternity. Now it seems like a blink of the eye.

Larry Jacks
2007-Jun-21, 07:32 PM
Well, 6 months ago was around Christmas. This year is almost half over. If this keeps up, one day I'll wake up old. (Just turned 50 this year).

Noclevername
2007-Jun-21, 08:23 PM
Remember when you were a kid and someone said something like "6 months from now" and you thought that was an eternity. Now it seems like a blink of the eye.

Yet some days just seem to drag on and on...

Swift
2007-Jun-21, 08:46 PM
Allow me to defend the wedding registry a minute, speaking as a person who intends to register . . . someday, I hope.

A beautiful defense (and may you also enjoy a beautiful wedding someday). I have gone both ways (follow the registry or not) and for exactly the reasons Gillian stated. In a couple of weeks we are going to the wedding of one of my wife's cousin kids - a nice girl, but I don't know her that well, and so we opted for something she had registered for. We also have a number of friends who had later-in-life marriages, and already had all the basics (toasters and such) and so knowing what they really needed is very helpful.

But for close friends or relatives, we almost always get something more personal. For example, for a friend who loves the outdoors and loves picnics, we created a beautiful picnic basket set, with basket, dishes, a blanket, etc.

Doodler
2007-Jun-21, 09:33 PM
I keep getting asked if when I plan on getting married, given that my two younger siblings have already. After getting tired of telling people the beautifully rehearsed, exceptionally sarcastic, yet witty response I'd cooked up, I finally settled on answering "posthumously".

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-21, 09:54 PM
And, come to that, if people want to give dishes, I want them to give me Fiestaware of the right colours, not just any old dishes that I won't use--or will have to return.

My mom loves Fiestaware! She picks them up in antique shops, though. I didn't think it was being sold anymore.

Wait 'til I tell Mom! She'll spend my inheritance on dishes. ;)

Whirlpool
2007-Jun-22, 12:30 AM
If I'm gonna be married and have a husband "for life"..soon.. I will still be calling him "Babe" , just as I call him currently.

He is my "Babe" and I will be his "Babe" forever . <dreamyface>

Tobin Dax
2007-Jun-22, 04:43 AM
Number two, prevent you from getting six toasters when those people think, "Hey! Everyone needs a toaster!"

To me, a toaster is essentially a gag gift for that reason.

However, I'm really waiting to be able to give a new Cylon as a gag gift for a wedding. :D That wedding's a ways off, though.

publius
2007-Jun-22, 05:08 AM
Did you know that the average cost of a wedding now is about
$30K? That does not include the worthless piece of carbon on a ring, the honeymoon, etc. That is the just the stupid wedding and reception.

That is just ridiculous, and even more ridiculous would be going into debt to that tune for it. These female women critters tend to think differently at that, especially that worthless bit of carbon (you've got to hand it to Cecil Rhodes....), so maybe it's no surprise I haven't been in on the the things yet. :lol:

If I do, it's going to be a like a buddy of mine around here, one of the cast of lunatics and strange ducks of which I am one. His name is Roger, and he's been a cabinet maker for years. Roger lived as bachelor for years and years in an old house he actually inherited from one of his great aunts.

He's done fairly well over the years, although he'd be the type that buried money in coffee cans more than invested. Anyway, one year, oh about 5 years or so ago, he ups and starts building a new house in the pasture behind the old house. He tells everyone he just decided he wanted a new house.

The house gets completed. He has a shop behind the old house, where he makes the cabinets, and is either there building them or at a job site installing them. Anyway, one Thursday he tells his crew that he has some business to take care of the next day and he'll have to leave a little before noon.

That business was getting married. :lol: He and the now Mrs. Roger simply went before a Justice of the Peace that Friday afternoon. Their honeymoon was simply getting Mrs. Roger moved in the new house that weekend. Roger was back in his shop that Monday, when he mentioned what happened matter of factly. That was the first any of us ever heard of it.

That was Roger. And that's the way ol' Richard here is too. That's the way to do it. And I guarantee you Roger spent no more than $100 on that thing, and probably fussed about that.

-Richard

Maksutov
2007-Jun-22, 06:25 AM
[edit]magical poo...Now there's a fertile field!

A slight increase in silliness and the meter will hit 3,142 Clarabelles, at which point

BOOM!

and the place is covered with puffed rice.


For me, "wife" is a nice name for a gal I tied the knot with, as long as it's preceded by "ex".

publius
2007-Jun-22, 06:54 AM
THe "wedding industry" is $160 billion per year in the US, I just learned. Stop world, I want to get off.......................

-Richard

Damien Evans
2007-Jun-22, 07:06 AM
I keep getting asked if when I plan on getting married, given that my two younger siblings have already. After getting tired of telling people the beautifully rehearsed, exceptionally sarcastic, yet witty response I'd cooked up, I finally settled on answering "posthumously".

do you mind wheeling it out for us one last time?

Gillianren
2007-Jun-22, 07:14 AM
My mom loves Fiestaware! She picks them up in antique shops, though. I didn't think it was being sold anymore.

Wait 'til I tell Mom! She'll spend my inheritance on dishes. ;)

Oh, heck yeah! I bought what little I have (two place settings and a butter dish) at Macy's, but it's cheaper on--get this!--Amazon.com! They also have black, which Macy's does not. I also have a teapot in persimmon that Graham's mother gave me last Christmas which is actual vintage stuff, but it's a horrible colour, and we both know it. It looks like an exceptionally well-shaped chunk of flesh. Creepy. She's giving me a vintage platter in turquoise next Christmas, she says. (She used to work for a woman who had a bunch, and I think she's passing it on to me one piece every Christmas now.)

Okay, guys. Let's get a few things straight, here.

Number one, I don't want a chunk of carbon. It's overpriced and unattractive, even leaving aside the nasty socioeconomic ramifications, which I can't. Carborundum? Sure, if it's a nice blue. In fact, probably. But carborundum's much cheaper, and I'm on very good terms with a jeweler. Very few women of my acquaintance have any interest in the carbon.

Second, it's not just the bride pushing for the big wedding. Sometimes, it's the bride's mother or the groom's mother; sometimes, the bride and groom both get caught up in it. My intended wedding (to which you'll all be invited, of course!) is going to be huge but extremely casual. It'll be at ren faire, because that's the best way to handle my hundreds of friends, any number of whom would be enormously put out if they weren't invited. Probably we'll roast an ox or something. I'll be wearing full formal Elizabethan in cobalt blue silk trimmed in pearls, with the ruff you can get a hundred channels on, though we've not yet worked out what Graham'll be wearing. The money for making the thing will go into friends' pockets, as will a lot of the money for performing, catering, etc.

My mother will hate it. I mean, I'm sure she'll have fun, but she won't like the type of ceremony. She'll probably want me to be married in a church, and it's just not happening. (Then again, my sister was married in a friend's living room. That, however, is the least of the problems with her marriage.)

Tog
2007-Jun-22, 08:02 AM
When The Girlfriend (A term many other women have objected to but I use because if I say "Andrea" they all ask if it's my girlfriend, and I don't use "my girlfriend" because that implies that there is more than one; for me, there is not) becomes The Wife we will be sneaking off to Vegas. There are two reasons for this. We don't want/can't afford a big wedding, and because the first time we ever did anything that was just the two of us, not a group of people at a party or hanging out at a restaurant, was a car trip there.

After it's done, we'll come back and have a reception, which her mother will be all to happy to plan.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-22, 02:36 PM
WARNING TO DIABETICS: Do not read! :)



If I'm gonna be married and have a husband "for life"..soon.. I will still be calling him "Babe" , just as I call him currently.

He is my "Babe" and I will be his "Babe" forever . <dreamyface>

jamesabrown
2007-Jun-22, 03:18 PM
See, this is why I'm single, I'm no good at coming up with nicknames....

That's not why you're single...

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-22, 03:21 PM
That's not why you're single...

With no smileys, that's a little harsh. :confused:

Palomar
2007-Jun-22, 03:39 PM
We were married by a Justice of the Peace on St. Patrick's Day, 1993. No frills, no fuss. Nice street clothing, 1 witness, wedding-day photos taken on our lawn with husband's 35 mm on a mount.

I never wanted the fuss, hassle, stress of a big or even moderate-sized wedding. To each their own, though. But imo some people do go way beyond the point in "Prince/ss For A Day" -- like the middle class (I'm one) 40-something woman from Missouri who insisted on spending $5,000+ on a couple dozen of the world's most expensive roses alone! Dumb. Use that $ for a nice honeymoon or, better yet, the down payment on a house.

As for the greedy "return gifts for cash" couple in the article (read it previously), her bashing the gift of blue towels to the very people who gave them is the height of atrocious manners. I laughed when the advice columnist rightly called the upcoming wedding "The Fundraiser." :P

jamesabrown
2007-Jun-22, 03:40 PM
With no smileys, that's a little harsh. :confused:

:)
;)
:lol:

jamesabrown
2007-Jun-22, 03:41 PM
Bridezillas at their finest:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qmGCD1uCh-g

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-22, 03:42 PM
For me, "wife" is a nice name for a gal I tied the knot with, as long as it's preceded by "ex".

That's how my Marine friend used to feel. Now, he is contemplating marriage to this girl he's only known for 2 months!!

Go figure... :confused:

Palomar
2007-Jun-22, 03:49 PM
That's how my Marine friend used to feel. Now, he is contemplating marriage to this girl he's only known for 2 months!!

Go figure... :confused:

:lol: My sister and sis-in-law both hate men, hate men, HATE MEN when they've just finished another disappointing relationship. They never need men again, "we women are stupid to bother," "next time I'm calling the shots," etc. etc.

And then they're falling all over the next halfway good-looking guy who glances their way; catering to him, etc. :rolleyes:

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-22, 03:52 PM
:lol: My sister and sis-in-law both hate men, hate men, HATE MEN when they've just finished another disappointing relationship. They never need men again, "we women are stupid to bother," "next time I'm calling the shots," etc. etc.

And then they're falling all over the next halfway good-looking guy who glances their way; catering to him, etc. :rolleyes:

La donna e mobile . . .

NEOWatcher
2007-Jun-22, 03:54 PM
And then they're falling all over the next halfway good-looking guy who glances their way; catering to him, etc. :rolleyes:
But; isn't he always the one who's not like all the others? :lol:


I never wanted the fuss, hassle, stress of a big or even moderate-sized wedding. To each their own, though. But imo some people do go way beyond the point in "Prince/ss For A Day" -- like the middle class (I'm one) 40-something woman from Missouri
Darn; you're already married. :wall:

Larry Jacks
2007-Jun-22, 05:37 PM
My sister and sis-in-law both hate men, hate men, HATE MEN when they've just finished another disappointing relationship. They never need men again, "we women are stupid to bother," "next time I'm calling the shots," etc. etc.

Maybe it's time they realized that the common factor in all of their failed relationships is them, especially if they're attracted to the "bad boy" types. Some women whine about how all of the good men are taken. It's simple - they got tired of waiting for women like them to come to their senses.

We were married by a Justice of the Peace on St. Patrick's Day, 1993. No frills, no fuss. Nice street clothing, 1 witness, wedding-day photos taken on our lawn with husband's 35 mm on a mount.

My wife and I were married in a small church. Our wedding consisted of the two of us, two witnesses, and the minister. Total cost (in 1983) was about $150 and that included the rings. Our 24th anniversary is this Sunday and we still wear those simple rings. Of course, my wife has acquired some more expensive pieces of jewelry over the years but that simple gold (plated) band is all I need.

Use that $ for a nice honeymoon or, better yet, the down payment on a house.

IMO, people who spend tens of thousands of dollars on a wedding and reception are nuts. The wedding is a ceremony, the reception is a party, and the honeymoon is a vacation. All are over with in no time. Like you, I believe they'd be far better off putting that money into a down payment for a house or something tangible and lasting. Going into debt to enjoy a brief ceremony, a party, or a vacation is insane.

Doodler
2007-Jun-22, 07:27 PM
The only fun part of weddings for me are watching bridal meltdowns. The grooms have it too easy to screw with them.

1) Everything they need to say is recited to them first.
2) The booze doth flow
3) People finally stop looking at you funny when they find out you're having sex with her.

Its a win-win-win scenario.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-22, 07:42 PM
We'll already have a house by the time we get married, at least probably. The wedding I have planned will be huge, but it shouldn't cost more than about $5000 all told, including rings and clothes. You can't get a house for that. You can't even get a very good car for that.

Swift
2007-Jun-22, 08:06 PM
We'll already have a house by the time we get married, at least probably. The wedding I have planned will be huge, but it shouldn't cost more than about $5000 all told, including rings and clothes. You can't get a house for that. You can't even get a very good car for that.
Like so many things, you can be excessive on wedding expenses, like Palomar's story about thousands spent just on the roses. And of course, one person's excess is another's prudence. But I don't see the harm, if that is what one wants, to spend some money on a big party with all the friends and relatives, whether it is a wedding or something else. If one would rather just do the county clerk and save your money for something else, well that's fine too.

The sadder thing to me is the people I've talked to over the years who had miserable times at their own weddings, either because it wasn't perfect, or too busy, or it wasn't done the way they wanted. I had a great time at my wedding - it was beautiful and a lot of fun.

One of my favorite things was some post-wedding spontaneous events. We had our wedding ceremony and meal at a local lodge. A lot of our out-of-town guests stayed there, as did we (for the wedding night). We had a late morning ceremony and then a mid-day meal. But that was all done by about 6 or 7. So we gave everyone an hour or so to relax and change into casual clothes, then invited everyone up to our room to hang out. Deb and I opened presents and eventually we ordered in a pizza and had a blast with about a dozen friends and relatives.

The next morning, everyone around got together for breakfast. We invited people back to our apartment, hung out there for a while. We decided at that point to eat the "saved" top layer of the cake (it would have just been stale in a year anyway). We bought a new little cake for our one year anniversary. 17 years later it is still a great memory.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-22, 09:12 PM
That's not why you're single...

:cry::boohoo:

:rolleyes:

Noclevername
2007-Jun-22, 09:12 PM
That's not why you're single...

:cry::cry::cry::boohoo:

:rolleyes:

ADDED: I'm done erasing my double posts. You can just read my stupid little snarks twice, and to heck with you.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-23, 12:04 AM
:cry::cry::cry::boohoo:

:rolleyes:

Well, I didn't get married until I was 37. Same could have applied to me a couple of years ago. ;)

Noclevername
2007-Jun-23, 12:09 AM
Well, I didn't get married until I was 37. Same could have applied to me a couple of years ago. ;)

...I suppose I'll have to leave my house first, right? That's what all the books say to do...:neutral:

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-23, 12:26 AM
Actually..not necessarily. A friend of mine is on the verge of marrying this girl, and they have only actually met twice. Most of their romance has been conducted over the phone and via email! Whether said marriage would last the year is another question! ;)

Although I am now happily married, I could have also remained happily single until I died. I thought I would remain single. My mom is a great example of a happy, fulfilled single woman.

I've never liked the relentless pressure from society to pair up with somebody. I hated it when I was single and still dislike it as a married woman. I feel the same way about the relentless pressure to reproduce. We are getting that now that we have 'taken the first step'. :rolleyes:

Noclevername
2007-Jun-23, 12:31 AM
Actually..not necessarily. A friend of mine is on the verge of marrying this girl, and they have only actually met twice.

:eek: :naughty:

(Well, it could be worse. At least they've met often enough for him to find out she's not a guy or an FBI sting. :doh:)

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-23, 01:11 AM
:eek: :naughty:

(Well, it could be worse. At least they've met often enough for him to find out she's not a guy :doh:)

Maybe . . .

Noclevername
2007-Jun-23, 01:17 AM
Maybe . . .

Really don't want to go there. :sick:

Maksutov
2007-Jun-23, 10:06 AM
We'll already have a house by the time we get married, at least probably. The wedding I have planned will be huge, but it shouldn't cost more than about $5000 all told, including rings and clothes. You can't get a house for that. You can't even get a very good car for that.On the contrary, in many parts of the country and with current interest rates, $5000 will contribute a goodly chunk toward the down payment on a very decent house.

;)

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-23, 10:43 AM
On the contrary, in many parts of the country and with current interest rates, $5000 will contribute a goodly chunk toward the down payment on a very decent house.

;)

Not in the DC area, unfortunately. :(

Gillianren
2007-Jun-23, 11:13 AM
On the contrary, in many parts of the country and with current interest rates, $5000 will contribute a goodly chunk toward the down payment on a very decent house.

;)

No, you don't understand--Graham wants to buy a house, if he can. Not have a mortgage. Besides which he has more than $5000 now; he's the only one of my social circle with real savings. He's been saving every penny he can since well before we met. I'll probably end up being the one to pay most of the wedding expenses if I can afford to by then. (Fingers crossed.)

Maksutov
2007-Jun-23, 11:32 AM
No, you don't understand--Graham wants to buy a house, if he can. Not have a mortgage. Besides which he has more than $5000 now; he's the only one of my social circle with real savings. He's been saving every penny he can since well before we met. I'll probably end up being the one to pay most of the wedding expenses if I can afford to by then. (Fingers crossed.)I sort of understood that, based on the context. But, given current prices, either you're going to have to have really big incomes in order to buy something right away, or have a lot of patience to save/invest the amount needed to buy a house outright.

BTW, with the general trend in housing costs, investment will be the only way re the latter, since savings account rates won't keep up.

crosscountry
2007-Jun-23, 12:03 PM
I give cash for two reasons: (1) I'm lazy and don't feel like going down to the registry and (2) the newlyweds aren't going to remember three years from now who purchased things from the registry and who gave cash.

If you want to be remembered, buy them something that rates high on the Goofy Meter. :)


I give all my friends moderately expensive wooden cutting boards. Some hang them on the wall as decoration, others use them. either way they will have something for a long time that will serve them as they like. Most still remember that it was me who gave them the cutting board.

Palomar
2007-Jun-23, 01:40 PM
1970s Iowa weddings of family/friends -- when I was a kid -- were the best imo. If the wedding gown wasn't from the local mom & pop bridal shop, the bride often wore her mother's or grandmother's gown. Or she and mom would make a homemade gown from a Butterick's pattern, or hired a local seamstress to do it. Local church gals would prepare a nice homemade (from scratch) wedding rehearsal dinner.

Sandwiches [shaved ham usually], mints and cake were reception food fare; sandwich buns were light-as-air freshness from the town mom & pop bakery. For my older sister's 1979 wedding, we made all the mints from a cream cheese recipe, using Wilton molds. Talk about work! But it was fun. :) We hand wrote thank-you notes which were rolled into little scrolls and tied with a blue ribbon.

The ceremony was solemn, lots of extended family would show up. The only downside was it'd have been great if there'd been disposable cameras then.

Forgot to mention that after husband and I exchanged vows before a JP in 1993, we did have cake and champagne with a handful of family and friends.

Anyway, I do cherish my childhood memories of 1970's weddings.

Donnie B.
2007-Jun-23, 02:08 PM
Gillian, you and Graham should keep in mind that it's not necessarily the best idea to pay cash for a house. There are two things that act to mitigate the cost of the mortgage interest.

First, assuming you have the cash on hand, you lose the returns you could be making by investing that cash. Second (and it's a biggie), you miss out on the tax deduction for the interest on the mortgage on your primary residence.

A third (but less concrete) loss is that having a mortgage and keeping it current is a great item on the old credit report.

Just something to consider when the time comes to run the numbers.

pumpkinpie
2007-Jun-23, 03:03 PM
I'm getting married in November. I'll be having the big, "traditional" wedding, and I am very excited about it!

I have a stunning hunk of carbon on my finger. I bought a beautiful dress that was too expensive, but I can't wait to wear it, and even more, I look forward to donating it somewhere after the wedding so at least one more person gets a chance to wear it too.

We're going through all the traditional planning stages--photographer, dj, flowers, invitations. It's stressful, it takes a lot of time, and it's ridiculous how much money it costs. But I am enjoying it!

Frankly, I would have been just fine with doing a small, intimate wedding, or even heading to Las Vegas. But this is the kind of wedding we decided on, and I'm going to make the most of it! I know things will go wrong, but I in no way intend to be the Bridezilla and insist that I be the center of attention. That's just ridiculous. I want everyone to have a good time!

Most importantly, I love my man. I can't wait to spend the rest of my life with him. In fact, I already am. We've been living together for almost a year now. In my mind we've already made the commitment. We're just waiting until a time that's convenient and gives us enough time to plan to celebrate it!

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-23, 03:27 PM
I give all my friends moderately expensive wooden cutting boards. Some hang them on the wall as decoration, others use them. either way they will have something for a long time that will serve them as they like. Most still remember that it was me who gave them the cutting board.

That doesn't even register on the Goofy Meter - but it pegs the Cool Meter!

publius
2007-Jun-23, 05:37 PM
I'm getting married in November. I'll be having the big, "traditional" wedding, and I am very excited about it!



You do need to put "traditional" in quotes, because most of these "traditions" are at best a few decades old. They've been cooked up to make one think it is tradition to spend lots of money. :lol:

For example, consider my paternal grandmother. She was born in, oh,
1894 I want to say, give or take a year or so. She married my grandfather when she was 16 and he was 18, which would put the wedding somewhere around 1910. It was very different back then, and if one wanted to be really traditional, one would do it like that.

That was well before the "tradition" of that allotrope of carbon on a ring came about. I don't even think an engagement ring of any sort was involved. Each of them had a simple wedding band and that was it. The ceremony was a rather serious affair in a church -- there may have a been a big "eating" or something afterwards, but that was it.

That business about the carbon on the ring came about, thank you Cecil "Diamonds are Forever" Rhodes, some time in the 1930s.

They had 4 childrend. My father was the baby, born after his older sister and oldest brother were themselves married, and my aunt even had her first child the same year my father was born. I was always thought it was funny that my father had a niece as as old as he. Anyway, that aunt herself was married before the carbon thing had really caught on, as well.

My father himself waited a long time to get married, and a long time after that to have children, and the result of that was I, a grandchild was actually younger than the brunt of my grandmother's *great* grandchildren. The carbon had established itself by the time he married my mother.

The disconnect between how weddings were done back then, a scant 100 years ago, vs now is quite enormous, especially if you have benefit of old timers who were actually there. Most of what is called "tradition" now isn't any such thing, just some money-costing stuff invented in recent times.

There's a lot of disconnect. Adolescence is getting longer and longer. It was funny once. That grandmother was raising cane about a grandaughter getting married when she was 20. She was way too young, my grandmother said. When it was pointed out that she herself got married when she was 16, my grandmother just laughed and said things were different back then and she knew what she was doing. :lol:

-Richard

DOOMMaster
2007-Jun-23, 07:17 PM
Did you know that the average cost of a wedding now is about
$30K? That does not include the worthless piece of carbon on a ring, the honeymoon, etc. That is the just the stupid wedding and reception.

Oh, yes, I know this all too well. I have a buddy that got married a little over a year ago. He had to pay for it all himself, his wife/then fiancee (whatever you want to call her) was going to spend exactly this. I was there the day he told her that they couldn't afford it and that she had to cut the wedding down. He managed to get her to cut it in half to $15K. Personally, I still couldn't believe spending that much just for a piece of paper.

He doesn't make too much money either, only in the mid $30K a year. Certainly not a bad amount for a guy that didn't even graduate high school, but spending half his salary in a year for one day? They went WAY in debt (she doesn't work and didn't work then) and still are. He has to work 80-90 hours a week just to pay the bills. Course, it doesn't help that they also now have 2 kids and a house they can't afford either, but that's what she wants, so that's what she gets. Personally, I'd rather not have to work 2 weeks in 1 just to scrape by.


I keep getting asked if when I plan on getting married, given that my two younger siblings have already. After getting tired of telling people the beautifully rehearsed, exceptionally sarcastic, yet witty response I'd cooked up, I finally settled on answering "posthumously".

You must around the same age I am. I'm 26 now, and that seems to be ALL I ever get asked when it comes to weddings. My sister got married over a year ago, but my brother is still single (he's only just 21 though, so he doesn't get asked like I do). I was just at a wedding for my older cousin and I had to keep hearing it from all my relatives. I got tired of answering never and then hearing the resulting "Oh, sure you will, blah, blah, blah...." I finally started replying "Have you ever considered suicide?"

"No?" in that 'what kind of question is that' type of voice.

"Neither have I. And that's why I'm not married."

It got funnier and funnier the drunker I got.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-23, 07:44 PM
I give all my friends moderately expensive wooden cutting boards. Some hang them on the wall as decoration, others use them. either way they will have something for a long time that will serve them as they like. Most still remember that it was me who gave them the cutting board.
We got a really nice cutting board from one of my husband's friends as a wedding present also. It is a very nice ida for a gift!

publius
2007-Jun-23, 07:45 PM
Oh, yes, I know this all too well. I have a buddy that got married a little over a year ago. He had to pay for it all himself, his wife/then fiancee (whatever you want to call her) was going to spend exactly this. I was there the day he told her that they couldn't afford it and that she had to cut the wedding down. He managed to get her to cut it in half to $15K. Personally, I still couldn't believe spending that much just for a piece of paper.


If you want to get even madder, consider this. That $30K average is often used up front, to convince people that weddings are really expensive, and so they'll be getting a "deal" on $15 - $20K! So normally, someone would walk out the door if asked to blow say $15K, but when they're told the average is $30K, they think they are "saving". A variation on of the oldest tricks in the book which to make someone think he is saving by spending.........

The "wedding industry" is all about cynically manipulating us by these and other tricks. In the big picture, the trick is to make some poor smuck think the only way to prove his love for a woman is to spend lots of money on her. And ladies, you don't get that money yourself do you? No, it's a third party that gets all that cash. What you get is either gone after a day, or is just some useless shiny trinket you've been convinced is something valuable and great. It's not.

The wedding industry is bad enough, but don't even get me started on the funeral industry, which is even worse. I consider the wedding industry to be simple hucksters, but the funeral business is downright criminal.

When I die, what's left is food for worms. Dig a hole and put me in the ground. Period. No fancy casket, no nothing. Just my rotting remains in the ground.

-Richard

crosscountry
2007-Jun-23, 09:06 PM
We got a really nice cutting board from one of my husband's friends as a wedding present also. It is a very nice ida for a gift!


thanks. I've been giving them since my first friend got married out of highschool. I was shopping for him at a nice handcrafted gift shop near my university when I found them. I still go back there to buy then. It was colorful and had a seperate "box" that came out so you could cut the vegetables or whatever and move just the box - not the whole cutting board. Those two are still happily married and when I visit them they are always happy to show me the gift I gave them. I think they may remember it best out of all the material gifts they received


edit for link.


it looked almost exactly like this one (http://www.davidlevycreations.com/the_product/cutting_boards/p9_tray_cutting_board.jpg)

Gillianren
2007-Jun-23, 09:16 PM
Gillian, you and Graham should keep in mind that it's not necessarily the best idea to pay cash for a house.

Yes. I know that. However, since it's not my money . . . .

It's mostly in CDs, I believe. However, his mother is handling all of his finances while he's overseas (much more sensible than having me do it), and I'm not terribly clear on a lot of the details except that he's saving more now than he did while I was home, even though I was paying rent when he was home. (I don't now because the military pays his rent.) I'm morally certain he had enough to pay for an "average" wedding right now, if we wanted a typical wedding.

About engagement rings: They've been traditional in one culture or another for literally thousands of years. Granted, the material they were made of varied substantially from one culture to another, but the concept of wearing a ring on that particular finger to symbolize your relationship goes back to the Egyptians at least, and there were other ancient cultures which did the engagement ring thing. There are even examples of diamond ones going back to roughly the 14th Century. They didn't become standard for everyone until the last hundred years, but diamond engagement rings aren't new.

Quite a lot of aspects of the traditional wedding go back a very, very long time in one form or another. That being said, it was a shock and a scandal when Mary Stewart wore white when she married the Dauphin of France; white was, at the time, a mourning colour. (And indeed, her husband died young, but then, he was sickly going into the marriage.)

I'm not fond of a lot of the trappings of modern weddings. I am, however, less fond of people who imply that my choice to spend the rest of my life with someone I love very deeply is a(nother) sign of mental illness or makes me stupid. Marrying Graham and killing myself are two very different things.

crosscountry
2007-Jun-23, 09:18 PM
here in Germany rings are catching on because of American television/influence.


Somehow they wear the ring on the right hand though. Left hand means nothing. Right hand might mean something.

crosscountry
2007-Jun-23, 09:19 PM
Marrying Graham and killing myself are two very different things.



maybe not to him:silenced:


That being said, it was a shock and a scandal when Mary Stewart wore white when she married the Dauphin of France; white was, at the time, a mourning colour.

furthermore





just teasing. Someone would have probably said it had I not.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-23, 09:20 PM
Marrying Graham and killing myself are two very different things.


A ringing endorsement indeed! He must be happy to hear that.

Darn, Crosscountry beat me to the punch.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-23, 09:24 PM
Just Wikipedia'd diamond cutting, it says 14th C. is when they started cutting and polishing them. Prior to that, I guess they were just semi-shiny pebbles.

Maksutov
2007-Jun-23, 11:09 PM
I'm getting married in November. I'll be having the big, "traditional" wedding, and I am very excited about it!...No offense, but based on your description that's a typical yuppie wedding. Yuppie weddings originated for the most part during the late 70s and really took over during the 80s.

One thing to think about is after the wedding, after the honeymoon, when real life takes over and the bills start pouring in, when you find yourself thinking "Maybe the money for some of those wedding frills might come in handy right now.", by then it's too late. Something to consider now.

Unless someone else is footing the bill for the extravaganza. Even there, there are catches.

Meanwhile I wish the best for the two of you and a very long, happy married life.

DOOMMaster
2007-Jun-24, 12:10 AM
If you want to get even madder, consider this. That $30K average is often used up front, to convince people that weddings are really expensive, and so they'll be getting a "deal" on $15 - $20K! So normally, someone would walk out the door if asked to blow say $15K, but when they're told the average is $30K, they think they are "saving". A variation on of the oldest tricks in the book which to make someone think he is saving by spending.........

The "wedding industry" is all about cynically manipulating us by these and other tricks. In the big picture, the trick is to make some poor smuck think the only way to prove his love for a woman is to spend lots of money on her. And ladies, you don't get that money yourself do you? No, it's a third party that gets all that cash. What you get is either gone after a day, or is just some useless shiny trinket you've been convinced is something valuable and great. It's not.

The wedding industry is bad enough, but don't even get me started on the funeral industry, which is even worse. I consider the wedding industry to be simple hucksters, but the funeral business is downright criminal.

When I die, what's left is food for worms. Dig a hole and put me in the ground. Period. No fancy casket, no nothing. Just my rotting remains in the ground.

-Richard

Not so much mad, just disbelieving that people actually spend that kind of money. I was part of the wedding party, so I was directly participating in everything. I didn't think it was worth $1k, let alone $15K. I know that the food/alcohol at the reception can be kinda pricey, but just the amount they spent for the wedding part was too much. Still, my parents managed to put together my sister's wedding for less than $6K, reception and honeymoon to Hawaii included.

I think it's a waste. All that money could be spent on, well, just about anything else. For $30K, I can buy a very nice new car. Or I could pay down more on my home mortgage than I currently am. Or, gee, I don't know, maybe invest it for the future? What do you get out of a marriage ceremony (well, other than the period of misery and inevitable divorce, but we'll leave that to another thread)? A piece of paper and a binding legal contract. Wow, that was worth it.

And I agree with you fully on the funeral part as well. I'm considering donating my body to science, just to see some benefit out of it. Spending all that money on something that doesn't do me any good anymore it's rather pointless, IMHO.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-24, 12:15 AM
And I agree with you fully on the funeral part as well. I'm considering donating my body to science, just to see some benefit out of it. Spending all that money on something that doesn't do me any good anymore it's rather pointless, IMHO.

Just harvest whatever organs you need, cremate the rest and scatter the ashes someplace. It ain't me anymore, so I don't care. Spending good money on a box, a patch of dirt and a slab of rock? Why? So people can come and visit a corpse and pretend they're still talking to me??

What ghoulish medieval bushwah is that? :sick::sick::sick:

publius
2007-Jun-24, 01:25 AM
Actually, if you let them, they will even sell you a box that cost thousands to cremate you in. Sell you an overpriced box to do nothing but burn. I'm not kidding.

I got really about this several years ago. The funeral people keep their wholesale prices guarded like the nuclear launch codes, but various reporters have managed to find out. It was ridiculous -- a casket they would charge someone a few thousand for actually cost them just a few hundred. We're talking thousands of percent markup.

And the funeral people are quite in tight with the legislators, too. At one time, there were some outfits selling cheap caskets. The funeral people didn't like that, and got the legislature to tighten the laws (licensing to "protect" the bereaved, you must understand -- the person is already dead, what harm is going to be done, save some sort of fraud, which is what they're really doing anyway) and make that just about impossible. So, want to buy a casket, they've pretty much cemented a monopoly on that.

That (along with the funeral cost of the last uncle of mine we buried) got me really mad, and I got to looking at just what is required, by law, for burial. There's not much there at all, really, legally. And I am going to specify in my will (reminds me I need to get on that) that no more than that minimum is going to be done.

You can, if you have a private burial plot, simply put a bare body in the ground, and cover it up. :lol:

-Richard

Larry Jacks
2007-Jun-24, 02:07 AM
Oh, yes, I know this all too well. I have a buddy that got married a little over a year ago. He had to pay for it all himself, his wife/then fiancee (whatever you want to call her) was going to spend exactly this. I was there the day he told her that they couldn't afford it and that she had to cut the wedding down. He managed to get her to cut it in half to $15K. Personally, I still couldn't believe spending that much just for a piece of paper.

He doesn't make too much money either, only in the mid $30K a year. Certainly not a bad amount for a guy that didn't even graduate high school, but spending half his salary in a year for one day? They went WAY in debt (she doesn't work and didn't work then) and still are. He has to work 80-90 hours a week just to pay the bills. Course, it doesn't help that they also now have 2 kids and a house they can't afford either, but that's what she wants, so that's what she gets.

It's fairly widely reported that financial problems are one of the leading causes of divorce. I have no trouble believing that. Sadly, I predict your friend's marriage is in danger because he's married to someone who has no concept of the value of money. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that she also complains because he's gone at work so much but doesn't see the connection between her spending habits and his work requirements.

As for when I die, I've told my family to strip me for parts (donate whatever organs are usable) and burn the rest. No box. No grave. No headstone. Personally, they don't even have to have a memorial service. I have my reasons why I don't want my family to give a penny more than necessary to the undertakers, but that's way off topic for this thread.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-24, 03:11 AM
maybe not to him:silenced:

Yes. Very amusing. I'm sure I am an unconscionable burden on those I love.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-24, 03:41 AM
It's fairly widely reported that financial problems are one of the leading causes of divorce.

Marriage is the number one cause. :)

DOOMMaster
2007-Jun-24, 03:55 AM
It's fairly widely reported that financial problems are one of the leading causes of divorce. I have no trouble believing that. Sadly, I predict your friend's marriage is in danger because he's married to someone who has no concept of the value of money. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that she also complains because he's gone at work so much but doesn't see the connection between her spending habits and his work requirements.

Oh, no doubt sir, no doubt here at all. The only part you have wrong in your statement is that she complains he doesn't work enough. Am I serious here? 100%. Whenever he spends money on something, she has to get something in return. For example, we were suppose to go to the Tool concert together (unfortunately, I had to go to NY on business, so I had to miss it). The tickets cost $60. When she found out, the first words out of her mouth were "Well, then I get to go out shopping, since you get to go to Tool."

To me, $60 is hardly an expense, but then I don't work 90 hours a week to pay the bills. She has absolutely no idea of what it takes to put her up in her little lifestyle. She had to have a new house because I bought one and it was bigger than their current home. She had to have a brand new car because a mutual friend of ours bought a brand new car. The cycle is endless.

I've already said to another good friend (him, my buddy with the expensive wife, and I have all been very good friends since we were about 5 years old) that in 5 years he'll go bankrupt and she'll divorce him. He didn't even flinch when I said he, he just agreed and shook his head sadly. Which pretty well sums up most marriages today. A sad but true story in regard to divorce rates.

Maksutov
2007-Jun-24, 04:56 AM
So far the posts in this thread are a ratio of four weddings to one funeral.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-24, 07:33 AM
See, the question I have, DOOMMaster, is why did he marry her in the first place? It wasn't the marriage that made her like that. It doesn't sound like there's a lot of love there--though sometimes it doesn't, from the outside, even when there is. If someone is that awful, it doesn't matter whether you're married or not; that's not going to be a healthy relationship. I don't think you can blame the wedding industry for her, either.

I'm in love. So's Graham. We want to celebrate that love with all our friends and get the legal benefits the state will provide for us. (Not to mention the blessing of the Goddess, but he doesn't care about that.) So we're going to have a big party and a ritual. After we do, our day-to-day life won't actually change all that much, though it will alter things legally. Why is there so much hostility toward marriage?

crosscountry
2007-Jun-24, 09:19 AM
I've already said to another good friend (him, my buddy with the expensive wife, and I have all been very good friends since we were about 5 years old) that in 5 years he'll go bankrupt and she'll divorce him. He didn't even flinch when I said he, he just agreed and shook his head sadly. Which pretty well sums up most marriages today. A sad but true story in regard to divorce rates.



I had a professor that happened to. He was a working psychologist making lots of money in a big town. When he decided to retire and teach introductory level psychology his wife divorced him because the money wasn't as good as before.

Maksutov
2007-Jun-24, 10:12 AM
I had a professor that happened to. He was a working psychologist making lots of money in a big town. When he decided to retire and teach introductory level psychology his wife divorced him because the money wasn't as good as before.Sounds familiar.

I had a Junior Women's Club, social-climbing wife who got really ticked off when I switched jobs from management to "just plain engineering". She was so upset when she couldn't boast to her friends about how many people reported to her husband.

What she didn't realize was that the engineering job took a significantly fewer number of hours than the management job, paid better, and was, most importantly, part of my strategy for making sure I could properly provide for my son (monetarily and parent-wise) after the impending divorce.

Delvo
2007-Jun-24, 11:54 AM
Not so much mad, just disbelieving that people actually spend that kind of money.It's presumably an imbalanced distribution curve weighted to the left; "average" would be significantly higher (to the right of) than anything you could call "normal/standard/common" (the highest part of the curve).


Why is there so much hostility toward marriage?Look more closely. What's been expressed here is hostility toward some other things, not marriage, such as people who push marriage at the unmarried like it's automatic that everyone should/must by default or else there's something seriously wrong, the expensive trappings of an overblown wedding and people who treat them as indispensable, and the stress that financial stupidity (or even clashes between incompatible non-stupid financial behaviors) can put on a marriage.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-24, 02:21 PM
Look more closely. What's been expressed here is hostility toward some other things, not marriage, such as people who push marriage at the unmarried like it's automatic that everyone should/must by default or else there's something seriously wrong, the expensive trappings of an overblown wedding and people who treat them as indispensable, and the stress that financial stupidity (or even clashes between incompatible non-stupid financial behaviors) can put on a marriage.

I agree that marriage should not be pushed at anyone, just as having children should not be pushed at anyone. I don't think that is what Gillianren is doing, however, and I think that people also have the perfect right to express how happy having kids/getting married makes them.

I totally agree with you, Delvo, RE the strain financial stupidity puts on a marriage, or on any relationship for that matter. I, for one, would have never married my husband had he been foolish with money. I would also never push him to work himself into his grave to pay for my extravagant tastes (if I had any). I believe in equality in a marriage; both people should exercise financial responsibility.

Maksutov
2007-Jun-24, 02:31 PM
[edit]I, for one, would have never married my husband had he been foolish with money. I would also never push him to work himself into his grave to pay for my extravagant tastes (if I had any). I believe in equality in a marriage; both people should exercise financial responsibility.As one who was married to the equivalent of Peg Bundy (without her sex drive) for ten long, long, long...years, I appreciate what you wrote.

BTW, for the critics out there, my ex should have received the Academy Award for Best Female Performance During An Engagement.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-24, 02:36 PM
As one who was married to the equivalent of Peg Bundy (without her sex drive) for ten long, long, long...years, I appreciate what you wrote.

BTW, for the critics out there, my ex should have received the Academy Award for Best Female Performance During An Engagement.

Yikes!

Yeah, I've known women like that.

DOOMMaster
2007-Jun-24, 04:06 PM
See, the question I have, DOOMMaster, is why did he marry her in the first place? It wasn't the marriage that made her like that. It doesn't sound like there's a lot of love there--though sometimes it doesn't, from the outside, even when there is. If someone is that awful, it doesn't matter whether you're married or not; that's not going to be a healthy relationship. I don't think you can blame the wedding industry for her, either.

I'm in love. So's Graham. We want to celebrate that love with all our friends and get the legal benefits the state will provide for us. (Not to mention the blessing of the Goddess, but he doesn't care about that.) So we're going to have a big party and a ritual. After we do, our day-to-day life won't actually change all that much, though it will alter things legally. Why is there so much hostility toward marriage?


You know, I ask that same question myself. I can't answer it. I wouldn't get a good answer out of him, so I don't bother to ask yet. Maybe after the whole meltdown and divorce I will. And she was like that before the marriage, so no, the marriage had nothing to do with it.

I'm glad your in love, but I really do have a severe dislike for the entire marriage concept. Perhaps it is from my view in Illinois, where the marriage/divorce laws so favor the woman that it makes me sick. I know plenty of my friends that have gotten married and have one of the 3 following things happen.

1) She threatened him with divorce anytime she doesn't get what she wants or things are going the way she plans

2) After getting the divorce, she gets pretty much everything (house, car, half his paycheck) regardless of how much money she makes and regardless of children

3) They do have kids and she gets them every time, unless he can PROVE (and not just accuse, he has to prove it) that she's a drug addict. No exceptions, unless they stay out of court. If she goes to court, it's over.

So perhaps it is different in other states/countries and marriage is a bit more beneficial to both sexes. And maybe the divorces laws are more equal too. But not in my state. I could give you examples of many people I know (friends, family, people I've worked with, etc.), but it would take days to type out. Suffice to say, unless you are a woman, you really don't want to get married in IL. Judges will even through out pre-nup agreements here.

But it's not just IL laws that put me off about marriage. I really don't see a legal reason for it in modern society either. If 2 people want to pledge their lives to each other, fine, do it in a civil/religious ceremony that doesn't have any legal connection what-so-ever. I know a few couples that will never get married, but live together, love each other, have kids, and they don't seem to have any of the problems that my married/previously-married friends have had with their relationships.

Love and marriage are not the same thing. I think the problem is that too many people today confuse the two. Hence the high rate of divorce, not to mention that no one wants to spend the time to actually make the relationship work.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-24, 07:33 PM
As I've said elsewhere, I don't really have a problem with divorce. If you make each other unhappy and it can't be reconciled, or if you don't have anything in common anymore, why should you stay married?

In most of the cases cited here, the problem is not with the institution itself. The problem is with individuals. I think the institution serves a valid function; one piece of paper is simpler than the many others it would take to establish some of the same things. And in cases where there are children involved, it helps establish guardianship for the children should something happen to the mother. (Let's face it, if you don't know who the father is, the mother gets custody; the mother is easy to establish.)

I don't want any of you to get married against your will. Really. I'm not even, you'll note, saying all of you should find someone to be with. All I'm saying is that the choice isn't universally wrong. It would be right for me and Graham if we could work out something about my medical care. For some people, the big party is right. Some people like the big, unnecessary chunk of carbon.

And I doubt the laws in Illinois are so different from laws elsewhere in the country. If they are, the problem, again, is with the divorce laws--and in the cases described, the people involved!--not with marriage.

publius
2007-Jun-24, 08:04 PM
It's pretty much the same in all 50 states. If you're a man, you're screwed in divorce court. As some comedian put it, why not save yourself all the trouble: just find a woman you hate, buy her a house, and give her half of everything you make from now on (and the best half, you get the worst). :lol:

A fellow I know somewhat, not well, but know, got his fool self entangled with a gold-digger, and possibly black widow type. He was number three for her, and one her previous husbands had died, the other just divorced. She was the type who went for "sugar daddies", older men with money.

After it was over, he said if he didn't get divorced he'd be dead from the stress like the last idiot, she took him to the cleaners. I forget exactly how he described it, but it was funny. It was a woman judge, and he said he knew he didn't have a chance when he saw that, and his lawyer just patted him on the back and said kiss it goodbye.

He was asked why he was so stupid, and his reply was, well, he was thinking with a certain part of his anatomy not his brain. It was some good looking younger woman making eyes at him, and he just went crazy.

He descibed how she planned it out when divorce was imminent -- she knew the game and how to do it, and he didn't have a clue what was happenning.

She even tried to set up a wife-beating/abuse frame on him. She had decided the split up was going to occur one day when he got home. And it did. She had a friend of hers call the cops pretending to be a neighbor and report a domestic incident right at the time he got home -- she may have had some signal to trigger it.

Anyway, she tried to goad him into hitting her by throwing a hissy fit and calling him every name in the book and breaking some of his prized possessions. He didn't take the bait and that made her mad. The cops did show up, but she didn't have any evidence he'd hit her and that made her so mad she could spit.

Poor guy just had no idea what kind of a frame-up he was in the middle of.

-Richard

publius
2007-Jun-24, 08:26 PM
I suppose to be a fair I ought to tell another one where it was the man who was at fault. :lol: It was a standard "midlife crisis" kind of crap. He was married to a good woman and had daughter I went to school with (and she was pretty pleasing to the eyes, I remember well). Sometime in his late 40s, he got that midlife crisis going, and starting sneaking off picking up young chicks in bars.

That led to a big divorce, where he lost his house and a good bit of money. Daughter was 20 or so at the time, so no child support stuff came into it. Daughter hated men for a long time after than. :sigh:

So he marries one of those young bar chicks, and it cost him dearly. He had to buy her things to keep her, such as a Corvette, expensive trips, and loads of trinkets. That just delayed the inevitable, and now he's flat broke with nothing to show for it.

These midlife crises have their signs, I've noticed. Whenever you see a man in his 40s-50s get a "perm", start wearing cool clothes (you know, a shirt opened down the middle with gold chains or something. :lol: ), look out.

I got a fellow I know in big trouble for that, but it was for his own good. He did the "perm" thing, and I ran into him and his wife at a restaurant with some friends. I got to going on about how that was a sign of a midlife crisis and some teenage girl as above. It was in a very joking way, mind you. His wife didn't say a word, just sort of sat there with a thin smile on her face.

The next time I saw him, he had a crew cut! :lol: The wife nipped that little midlife crisis in the bud right then and there.

-Richard

Noclevername
2007-Jun-24, 08:27 PM
Why have a wedding at all? Stay together a while, let "Common Law" do its thing. :)
(Actually, I think that the State telling you you're married is really rude and pushy. The entire idea that the government has any say about marriage is rather ludicrous. It's none of their business. Child care, sure, there need to be a few laws about that. But the marriage or the divorce? I guess busybodies just like telling people what to do. :()

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-24, 08:35 PM
Whenever you see a man in his 40s-50s get a "perm", start wearing cool clothes (you know, a shirt opened down the middle with gold chains or something. ), look out.

ROFL!! I'll keep that in mind, Publius, thanks! ;)


Why have a wedding at all? Stay together a while, let "Common Law" do its thing.

Well, I tried that for 2.5 years with my 'ex'. He cheated on me several times; he justified it to himself and to me by saying it wasn't really cheating as we weren't married! The only good thing about shacking up was that it was very easy to leave the ******* in the end--no need to go to divorce court--and that his philosophy about cheating went both ways after I found out what he was doing!

Noclevername
2007-Jun-24, 08:36 PM
Well, I tried that for 2.5 years with my 'ex'. He cheated on me several times; he justified it to himself and to me by saying it wasn't really cheating as we weren't married! The only good thing about shacking up was that it was very easy to leave the ******* in the end--no need to go to divorce court--and that his philosophy about cheating went both ways after I found out what he was doing!

Good thing you didn't marry him, then.

DOOMMaster
2007-Jun-24, 08:48 PM
Everything that was written

I'm not very well versed in those types of divorce, simply because most of the people I know are younger (20-30 year olds). I usually see the types were they think they are in love (more like lust), get married, and then later realize how big a mistake they made. Or the ones that get married because of pregnancy, only the realize they can't stand each other after a few months.

As for the gold diggers, I can spot them from a mile away. I try to stay away from them at all costs. You occassionally get that one that is very good at hiding her money-needs and then springs it on you after you've been dating for a while. They pull the "you need to buy me this," thinking that they've got you hooked. And, as you said, many guys fall for it because they are thinking with equipment other than their brain. Just better to get rid of her ASAP, she isn't worth the trouble. No matter how good she is in bed, she isn't worth it.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-24, 08:50 PM
Good thing you didn't marry him, then.
Yup. He was bad husband material. On the other hand, my husband is one of the sweetest men I've ever met, and I would never want to be with anyone else. For me, that meant marriage. For others, maybe not. I think the decision to get married should be the couple's business only.

The good thing about marriage is that you can get on your spouse's health plan and can make healthcare decisions for him or her should the need arise. This is not necessarily true for a 'live-in girlfriend'. One time, my ex drank so much that he went beyond drunk, wasted, or 'faced into frank alcohol poisoning. He had to be taken to the hospital. When I got him there, I was told that, even though I had lived with him for 2 years and was basically his common-law wife, I had no right to know his medical information and could not make health care decisions for him. I had to call his aged mother (who lives up in NJ) to get her to give the hospital permission to give me information!!

Whenever I got sick or when my mom got sick, he would say that he couldn't take leave to help me out, as the Family Medical Leave Act doesn't cover live-in GFs and their families. He was technically correct. Could he have bent the rules to help me out? Maybe. He didn't want to.

I was a nobody to him as far as the legal system was concerned; I had no legal connection to him whatsoever. Not a good situation.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-24, 08:52 PM
What I love are unmarried couples who fight all the time and one (or both) of them figure that having a baby or getting married (or both) will somehow magically "fix" their relationship. Lots of Luck. :)

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-24, 08:57 PM
What I love are unmarried couples who fight all the time and one (or both) of them figure that having a baby or getting married (or both) will somehow magically "fix" their relationship. Lots of Luck. :)

Yes!! :clap::clap::clap:


A bad marriage is easier to fix (in divorce court or in counselling) when no kids are involved. Britney is a prime example of how well the 'kids will fix the marriage' solution works. :doh:

Noclevername
2007-Jun-24, 09:01 PM
I was a nobody to him as far as the legal system was concerned; I had no legal connection to him whatsoever. Not a good situation.

Yeah, that's the thing. Right now, we have no legal say over these things. I thing we should be able to designate whoever we want; relative, spouse, lover, or friend; and more importantly exclude whoever we don't want; from having access to our information or any legal say over what happens to us. At present, you have to pay a bunch of lawyers and jump through hoops of paperwork just to get near that state. And even then it might be overturned if a judge is having a bad day or indigestion.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-24, 09:11 PM
Yeah, that's the thing. Right now, we have no legal say over these things. I thing we should be able to designate whoever we want; relative, spouse, lover, or friend; and more importantly exclude whoever we don't want; from having access to our information or any legal say over what happens to us. At present, you have to pay a bunch of lawyers and jump through hoops of paperwork just to get near that state. And even then it might be overturned if a judge is having a bad day or indigestion.

Yup, that's one of the reasons why I wanted to get married, besides the obvious one of formalizing a lifelong commitment. Our legal system has not woken up to the fact that the majority of the population is no longer living in a 1950s household (i.e.: a husband and wife, two kids, and a dog).

publius
2007-Jun-24, 09:13 PM
ROFL!! I'll keep that in mind, Publius, thanks! ;)



Yes indeed. :) While I'm having fun with this, seriously, when you see a man about that age acting that way, you can be sure that if he's not actually doing something he shouldn't, he's thinking about it. Learn to recognize the signs early so a little "tough love" can be applied before thoughts become actions.

I know of case, perhaps a bit embellished, but that tough love by the wife involved Tabasco sauce and his genitals.................it was negative reinforcement in that area. :lol: Think about the 20 year old cutie and experience pain and burning in that area, not pleasure.........


-Richard

Noclevername
2007-Jun-24, 09:20 PM
I know of case, perhaps a bit embellished, but that tough love by the wife involved Tabasco sauce and his genitals... it was negative reinforcement in that area. :lol: Think about the 20 year old cutie and experience pain and burning in that area, not pleasure...


...

But what if he had been thinking about his wife when it happened? Or just got aroused? There's no off switch, and the physical responses are identical. The capsaicin molecule is blind, as are certain reflexes...

Larry Jacks
2007-Jun-24, 09:29 PM
Why is there so much hostility toward marriage?

Gillianren, I don't have marriage at all. Almost exactly 24 years ago right now (give or take a few minutes), my wife and I were married. Sure, there have been challenges along the way but overall, we've been very happy together.

We met in college. Both of us were what is now called "non-traditional students", meaning we went to college several years after graduating high school. We decided to get married while still in school. It was tough. Our first few months together, our total income was less than $400 a month. Things like that can either make or break a couple. With us, it made us stronger. We learned how to be quite frugal and how to discuss financial matters. We learned how to make our money go further than most people believe possible. To this day, I can hardly stand to look at a box of macoronni and cheese.

There were times when she worked to put me through school, then other times when I worked to put her through school. We formed a partnership. Of the two of us, she's the most frugal. Growing up poor in the Philippines can do that for you. Not that I had a cushy life. I'm the youngest of 5 kids. My parents were a carpenter and a seamstress. We learned how to manage money early on instead of letting it manage us.

Whenever we were able to increase our income, we made it a point to spend less than we earned. As a result, our primary residence, our cars, and our airplane (40 years old) are all paid for. Our only debt is the mortgage on a rental property. We're maxing our our retirement savings (401K and Roth IRA) and putting away whatever else we can. This approach may not work for everyone but it sure has worked for us.

This part may be controversial but here it is - perhaps my greatest blessing is that I didn't marry any of the (American) women I dated before meeting my wife. What attracted me to her in the first place was that she didn't pay any of the ** dating games ("If you loved me, you'd buy me _____.") She knew I was a struggling (financially) student when we were dating. She actually said one time, "You're spending too much money on me." I almost fainted. We have fun together. She's a terrific wife which makes me work to be a better husband.

I'm a big fan of marriage. Whenever I hear someone is getting married, I ask them about their plans. Invariably, they start telling me about their wedding plans. I stop them. I want them to think about the plans for their marriage at least as much as they plan for their wedding. The wedding and reception are over with in a few hours. You want the marriage to last a lifetime. There are things that are only the business of the couple getting married that they alone need to decide. Things like work, managing their money, whether or not to have kids, etc. I urge most people to postpone having children for at least a couple years after the wedding to get their marriage on a strong footing.

publius
2007-Jun-24, 09:56 PM
...

But what if he had been thinking about his wife when it happened? Or just got aroused? There's no off switch, and the physical responses are identical. The capsaicin molecule is blind, as are certain reflexes...

Hee-hee, that's certainly true, of course. Let's see, the story goes the victim and the wife were at some party somewhere. She notices her husband is looking at some little cutie pie with that silly grin on his face that we all get. That's gets her attention. Then the cutie pie sort of returns the look, with a little giggly "Hi!" They had met before somewhere.

The wife did not like that at all. It was that silly grin on hubby's face plus the giggly way cutie pie acted that convinced her there a was a bud growing there that needed to be rapidly nipped. And so some Tabasco sauce was applied to a certain area in short order, right there at that party, according to the story.

-Richard

Noclevername
2007-Jun-24, 10:02 PM
Hee-hee, that's certainly true, of course. Let's see, the story goes the victim and the wife were at some party somewhere. She notices her husband is looking at some little cutie pie with that silly grin on his face that we all get. That's gets her attention. Then the cutie pie sort of returns the look, with a little giggly "Hi!" They had met before somewhere.



:think:
Sounds IMHO like it might have been too late, that all the wife was preventing was a rerun. Assuming the whole event actually happened at all.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jun-24, 10:13 PM
Tabasco sauce was applied to a certain area in short order.
Hot stuff baby.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-24, 10:16 PM
How did she happen to have an open bottle of Tabasco brand hot sauce handy? More likely it was a drink with some half-melted ice, but the story got "kicked up a notch" during the retelling.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-24, 10:17 PM
Think about the 20 year old cutie and experience pain and burning in that area, not pleasure...

But maybe he was a masochist and enjoyed it! :doh:

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jun-24, 10:18 PM
Bam.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jun-24, 10:19 PM
People wonder why I like being alone.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jun-24, 10:20 PM
How did she happen to have an open bottle of Tabasco brand hot sauce handy? More likely it was a drink with some half-melted ice, but the story got "kicked up a notch" during the retelling.
Better then a knife.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-24, 10:22 PM
Seriously though, a woman who would physically abuse and publicly humiliate her husband over a smile and a laugh is no prize either.

publius
2007-Jun-24, 10:35 PM
I can tell you one better than that, sort of a local legend that goes way back, and probably embellished pretty good as well. This would've been back in the 1930's or so, maybe '20s. Anyway, there was a prominent landowner and cotton planter who lived around her then. His sons and grandsons went on to be doctors and lawyers back in the 50s and so forth.

He had a spread with the big house and grounds surrounded by cotton fields. Back then, they had these little "one room school house" type of things of historical yore, and the "school marm" would be some single young woman they hired from somewhere. That young woman would need a place to stay during her tenure, and so this character put her up. Sort of standard procedure back then.

Anyway, it would've been some time, oh I forget, maybe around this time of year it was hot and humid, with weeds growing in the cotton and lots of field hands out there hoeing away.

Story was that one fine day a commotion was heard from inside the big house after the Mrs. came home a bit early from somewhere. She had just discovered the old codger and the school marm in the act.

As the story goes, the old codger comes running out of one door and the school teacher from the other, high tailing it. The wife comes out with a shotgun, a double barrel, fires one in the old man's direction, and the other in the teacher's direction. The field hands hit the deck to the sight of that prominent mad running down through the cotton rows as fast as he can go, and the teacher down another row. Wife reloads and fires several times as the story goes.

The poor teacher was "reassigned" far away, and that old codger spent about a week in town while negotiations for his safe return went on.

Again, that story has probably been embellished, but it is one of the legends around here amongst the old timers told when I was a kid, and they would've been kids at the time.

-Richard

crosscountry
2007-Jun-24, 10:36 PM
Yup. He was bad husband material. On the other hand, my husband is one of the sweetest men I've ever met, and I would never want to be with anyone else. For me, that meant marriage. For others, maybe not. I think the decision to get married should be the couple's business only.

The good thing about marriage is that you can get on your spouse's health plan and can make healthcare decisions for him or her should the need arise. This is not necessarily true for a 'live-in girlfriend'. One time, my ex drank so much that he went beyond drunk, wasted, or 'faced into frank alcohol poisoning. He had to be taken to the hospital. When I got him there, I was told that, even though I had lived with him for 2 years and was basically his common-law wife, I had no right to know his medical information and could not make health care decisions for him. I had to call his aged mother (who lives up in NJ) to get her to give the hospital permission to give me information!!

Whenever I got sick or when my mom got sick, he would say that he couldn't take leave to help me out, as the Family Medical Leave Act doesn't cover live-in GFs and their families. He was technically correct. Could he have bent the rules to help me out? Maybe. He didn't want to.

I was a nobody to him as far as the legal system was concerned; I had no legal connection to him whatsoever. Not a good situation.



but you can also see the other side when a live in girlfriend/boyfriend isn't exactly happy with the partner. You wouldn't want that person making live and death decisions. What if they were recently split up? the hospital wouldn't know. You could be stranger that found him in a ditch for that matter.

Some laws only make sense when preparing for the worst.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-24, 10:38 PM
but you can also see the other side when a live in girlfriend/boyfriend isn't exactly happy with the partner. You wouldn't want that person making live and death decisions. What if they were recently split up? the hospital wouldn't know. You could be stranger that found him in a ditch for that matter.

Some laws only make sense when preparing for the worst.

Same goes for a biological relative. You can't pick 'em, as some old saying goes. Or a disgruntled but incompletely divorced spouse, or one with poor judgement. Yet the law lets them right on in, no problem.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-24, 10:40 PM
DIABETIC ALERT!


On the other hand, my husband is one of the sweetest men I've ever met, and I would never want to be with anyone else.

crosscountry
2007-Jun-24, 10:45 PM
Same goes for a biological relative. You can't pick 'em, as some old saying goes. Yet the law lets them right on in, no problem.


that's true. But in this case the guy's mother in NJ could have said anything over the phone.


The idea is that someone should be responsible. Who has legal authority and who doesn't? A live in girlfriend? A stranger? A brother?



for the record I lived with a girl and then fiancee for a while. neither of us had to take care of the other in that regard, but of course we wouldn't have been able to if the case ever came up anyway.

We didn't get married. I was still too immature and she chose her career over me. We tried for a while after she moved, but the distance was too much that time around.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-24, 10:47 PM
that's true. But in this case the guy's mother in NJ could have said anything over the phone.


The idea is that someone should be responsible. Who has legal authority and who doesn't? A live in girlfriend? A stranger? A brother?

That's why there needs to be a list. One selected by that individual. And laws to protect those choices.

crosscountry
2007-Jun-24, 10:54 PM
too many people die without making a will. who plans to go to the hospital in advance?

just a point. I have to sleep now. Today was great, but tomorrow will be long.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-24, 11:01 PM
too many people die without making a will. who plans to go to the hospital in advance?


Hmm, put it on the annual tax form then. Make it one of those "you have to fill this out or the form is not complete" sections. And make it an option to say "nobody", then the doctors just make the decisions.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-24, 11:04 PM
too many people die without making a will. who plans to go to the hospital in advance?

I don't have either a will or a health-care power of attorney. I don't now, and I didn't even when I was riding my bike a lot. I know I should, but it is a metter of getting around to it.

Tobin Dax
2007-Jun-25, 12:34 AM
Tabasco sauce was applied to a certain area in short order.
Hot stuff baby.
Gives a whole new meaning to that song, doesn't it? :lol:

publius
2007-Jun-25, 12:56 AM
Seriously though, a woman who would physically abuse and publicly humiliate her husband over a smile and a laugh is no prize either.

Well, these are cautionary tales whose basic message is don't go messin' where you shouldn't be messin'. Or a better way to put it is the moral of a little allegory that goes thus:

A organ grinder and his little monkey set up shop at a train station. The monkey lets the end of his tail hang over a rail on the tracks. The train starts to move and cuts the end of his tail off. The monkey turns around to look and the next set of wheels come along and cut his head off.

The moral of that story, sage advice we are all well advised to heed, is "Don't lose your head over a little piece of tail."

-Richard

Noclevername
2007-Jun-25, 03:00 AM
Well, these are cautionary tales whose basic message is don't go messin' where you shouldn't be messin'.

There are plenty of real life stories, usually ending with "...She shot and killed him", that could do the same thing, IMHO. Guys* who do that sort of thing are usually not the type to be influenced by stories with morals, though. They usually seem to think that "getting caught" is something that happens to other people.

* Women who have affairs generally have a different psychological basis for it than men who do.

LurchGS
2007-Jun-25, 03:39 AM
For all who care... At the present moment, I am sitting in my parent's study in muggy Illinois. Why am I mentioning this on a thread devoted to weddings? Today is my parent's 50th anniversary. 50 Years. No divorces. All the kids showed, all the grandkids (all 4 of them). Basically, the entire family showed - along with 50 years of friends and students. Party was held in the (beautiful) garden of my parent's best friends, weather was good, and a fine time was had by all. Flash back to MY wedding - not yet 25 years ago. My wifeoid and I did not sign up for any register, in spite of having a big church wedding. By the time the wedding rolled around, we'd been living together for so long that there was nothing we needed. Instead, we asked that a donation be made to the giver's favorite charity. Now, back to the party.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-25, 04:30 AM
By the time the wedding rolled around, we'd been living together for so long that there was nothing we needed.

I don't know how many people I've known or heard of who get married after only a short time, because they're "in love!" only to have it fall apart because they married someone they barely knew. My brother-in-law's brother is an extreme example, married at three weeks, split up at three months. Right after buying a house together. And just to make it sound like a godawful country music song, she got his pickup truck. (Not funny though, he needed it to work.)

The worst part is that both of them already had kids from previous impulse marriages, who were old enough to know just how stupid their parents were acting, but too young to move out.

Moral: Get to know someone before you marry them. It should be someone actually worth spending the rest of your life with*, not just someone who makes you "feel good".

*That's a long time, so find out if you like spending a long time together. By spending a long time together.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-25, 05:32 AM
Why have a wedding at all? Stay together a while, let "Common Law" do its thing. :)
(Actually, I think that the State telling you you're married is really rude and pushy. The entire idea that the government has any say about marriage is rather ludicrous. It's none of their business. Child care, sure, there need to be a few laws about that. But the marriage or the divorce? I guess busybodies just like telling people what to do. :()

Common-law marriages have got to be one of the single most-misunderstood legal concepts.

First off, only a minority of states have common-law marriage; Washington, for example, is not one of them. From Wikipedia:


Common-law marriage can still be contracted in the following jurisdictions: Alabama, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (posthumously), Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. Note there is no such thing as "common-law divorce" (with the partial exception of Texas) — that is, you can't get out of a common-law marriage as easily as you can get into one. Only the contract of the marriage is irregular; everything else about the marriage is perfectly regular. People who marry per the old common law tradition must petition the appropriate court in their state for a dissolution of marriage.

Second, it generally takes more than just living together to attain common-law marriage status. Despite what everyone seems to think.

As to divorce law, it does vary from state to state, not least based on whether or not you're living in a community property state. I am living in one; most other residents of the US are not. (There are only nine community property states; apparently, it's as rare as common-law marriage.) However, divorce laws throughout the country have been getting more and more equitable over the years. For quite some time, a woman divorcing her husband or being divorced by her husband became an impoverished social outcast. The laws then swung over to over-protect the wife, in no small part because the women were now more likely to get custody of the children. Now, they're working toward equality.

So there's the non-anecdotal information, kids.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-25, 05:44 AM
Hmm. Learn something new every day. (Or, since it's after midnight here, every other day.)

publius
2007-Jun-25, 06:03 AM
Yes, common-law marriages are supposed to take more than "just living together". However, it is a matter of interpretation of the facts by a judge, and that will get interesting. It usually only comes up when something happens and one party says a common-law marriage exists, and another says it does not. :)

For example, someone dies who was living with someone. The family claims they weren't married and the live-in should get no benefit. The live-in claims he/she is the common-law spouse. Or a shack-up dissolves, and one party wants half the other party's crap. It goes to court and a judge will decide.

It is true that just living together may not count, but it also true that just living together (for some minimum amount of time, 30 days here) *can* count depending on, well, how a judge would decide it. There are cases where a judge ruled a common-law marriage did exist even though the "wife" explicitly stated to many witness that "they weren't married, just living together". The judge said a common law marriage still existed. And there are cases that went the other way.

So the bottom line is if you live in a common law marriage state, and you do NOT want a shack-up to be considered a marriage, you need to draft a legal document explicitly stating that you do not consider yourselves to be living in a state of marriage, and both parties must sign it. And on the other hand, if you want to make sure it *IS* considered a marriage, you must draft a document stating that as well.


-Richard

publius
2007-Jun-25, 06:39 AM
Now, about divorce. If it's not a community property state, it's an "equitable distribution" state. Equitable does not mean equal. It can be "mediated" -- if both parties (formally) agree on a distribution, a court can rubber stamp it. If there is no agreement, the judge decides. And a woman with a good, hot shot divorce lawyer can, well, take a poor man to the cleaners.

As an old song goes, if the husband had a gold mine, she gets the gold and he gets the shaft. Besides assests, there are also debts to divide equitably. Poor thing hasn't been working, and couldn't possibly afford to pay off the credit cards, so hubby gets stuck with all the debt. That's a common complaint I've heard from buddies of mine getting divorced. The wife will max out the credit cards as an final spiteful act, knowing he will get stuck with the debt.

One fellow I know had the court order him to pay to mow the lawn. He was thrown out of the house, of course, and his wife couldn't even cut the grass, and demanded he do it. Court ordered him to do it.

-Richard

Gillianren
2007-Jun-25, 07:00 AM
You know, I can list just as many women who have gotten shafted by husbands. One of the biggest unpunished crimes in the system today is failure to pay child support. In that case, given what a pittance most of the women I've known have received in child support, it's the kids that get hurt.

I'm quite sure you're not intending to come across as misogynistic. I'm quite sure that you're aware that I, for one, would never use divorce as a lever to get what I wanted from Graham, that I wouldn't spend all his money even if he let me. I'm quite sure you're aware that it takes more than two X chromosomes to get a divorce in your favour. I'm quite sure you're aware that a lot of women divorce abusive men. I'm quite sure you're aware that there are men who spend all the money their wives make. It just doesn't come across from what you're saying.

As to common-law, again, in order to have it legally recognized, you must do such basic things as call yourselves husband and wife in most jurisdictions where it's accepted at all, and it's accepted in very, very few jurisdictions.

crosscountry
2007-Jun-25, 07:52 AM
You know, I can list just as many women who have gotten shafted by husbands. One of the biggest unpunished crimes in the system today is failure to pay child support. In that case, given what a pittance most of the women I've known have received in child support, it's the kids that get hurt.

I'm quite sure you're not intending to come across as misogynistic. I'm quite sure that you're aware that I, for one, would never use divorce as a lever to get what I wanted from Graham, that I wouldn't spend all his money even if he let me. I'm quite sure you're aware that it takes more than two X chromosomes to get a divorce in your favour. I'm quite sure you're aware that a lot of women divorce abusive men. I'm quite sure you're aware that there are men who spend all the money their wives make. It just doesn't come across from what you're saying.




Sure, take the woman's side. Not that you're biased or anything.:lol:

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-25, 09:13 AM
There are also plenty of marriages that fail simply because the two people are ill-matched. My parents' marriage is an example of this. Both my mom and dad are good people. My dad didn't abuse Mom; he provided for her and was faithful. My mom never stole from dad or used him for money; she even refused alimony during the divorce and was going to refuse child support until the judge persuaded her otherwise. She also never abused him or was unfaithful. But she was a liberal English/History major, and he was a conservative mechanical engineer. Both were highly intelligent, educated people, but they clashed on just about everything. They probably could have worked it out in the end had they both really wanted to. Mom didn't want to, so she filed. Both wound up much happier for it, I think.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-25, 09:49 AM
Sure, take the woman's side. Not that you're biased or anything.:lol:

That's just it--I don't believe there is a "men's side" or a "women's side." I think that's too simplistic a view.

crosscountry
2007-Jun-25, 12:22 PM
the court sees it differently. If only you were the judge.

publius
2007-Jun-25, 04:27 PM
Yes, I am painfully aware that if one points the misandry of that mess that is the family court system, one will be called a misogynist or a sexist. That's why lawmakers are so afraid to do anything. Well, they, being lawyers, profit from it handsomely as well.

"Deadbeat dads". :sigh: That is nowhere near as bad as they like to pretend it is. Put "Deadbeat dad myth" in Google and just start reading. Here's a good one right here:

http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-49.htm

It gets good, as this little clip from that article shows:



The gravy train is so rife with such temptations it might appear to have been created for that purpose. In fact, this is precisely what it was. It turns out that the creator of the child-support system used in most jurisdictions is also the founder and primary owner of the nation's largest private collection company which directly profits from the system. Dr. Robert Williams was a paid consultant with HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] from 1983 to 1990 where he helped establish federally-driven uniform child-support guidelines that significantly increased obligations, according to James Johnston, a member of the Kansas Child Support Guidelines Advisory Committee. One year after joining HHS and the same year the mandatory federal guidelines were created, Williams started Policy Studies Inc. (PSI). Like the federal, state, and local bureaucracies that employ him, Williams has an interest not only in making the child-support levels as high as possible to increase his share of the take, but also in making them so high that they create arrears for him to collect. In short, he has a financial incentive to create as many 'deadbeat dads' as possible.



-Richard

publius
2007-Jun-25, 04:44 PM
Here's another good one:

http://mensightmagazine.com/Library/deadbeatmyth.htm

I like the part about the '92 GAO report. 66&#37; of fathers can't even afford to pay what the court orders them to pay.

In contested divorces, the mother gets sole custody of the children 90% of the time. Take his children away, then make him pay through the nose. It's no wonder a man might resent that. Joint custody as that article points out is a remedy for "deadbeat dads". If a father gets visitation rights, 80% pay the child support. With joint custody, it goes to 90%.

And there are some deadbeat moms as well, which no one cares about. In the few cases where the father gets custody, only 30% will be awarded any child support from the mother -- 80% of mothers get that. Of that 30% who do get an award, 47% of the women completely default on that obligation.

But nothing happens to them. No, it the men who go to jail.

ETA: Another little fun fact I didn't know. The state gets a 2% cut off the top of child support payments. Bigger award, more money for the state......

-Richard

publius
2007-Jun-25, 05:40 PM
Not exactly the same, but I stumbled on this, about sham paternity suits:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29035.html

Once again, men get the shaft from a system gamed against them.

Think about this. You can be saddled for child support for a child that is not yours, even with DNA evidence to prove the kid ain't yorn. Once a family court issues a default judgement, you are the legal father, and you pay. All that is "for the children", you must understand.

-Richard

Delvo
2007-Jun-25, 05:57 PM
I'm quite sure that you're aware that I, for one, would never use divorce as a lever to get what I wanted from Graham, that I wouldn't spend all his money even if he let me.Practically all women say that, so most of the ones who DO it once said that too.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-25, 06:00 PM
Practically all women say that, so most of the ones who DO it once said that too.


Well, isn't that kind of like saying "Most men claim they'd never have an affair"? The ones who do it are a minority, but all say it because nobody wants to admit to any wrongdoing.

ADDED: I learned a long time ago, if you want to know what someone's like, you don't listen to what they say. You watch what they do. That's how you really know them. Talk's cheap.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-25, 06:32 PM
Yes, I am painfully aware that if one points the misandry of that mess that is the family court system, one will be called a misogynist or a sexist. That's why lawmakers are so afraid to do anything. Well, they, being lawyers, profit from it handsomely as well.

My best friend, when she was a child, would have been taken away from her mother had the divorce ended up in court because of the homophobia of the family court system. This has improved over the last 20 years, but there we all are.

"Men get the shaft"? Really? All the time, no matter what? Is it getting the shaft when they're abusive? Frankly, in cases like that, I want to see the man taken for all he's worth--ideally, he should be sent to prison, but how often does that happen? And yes, I know that women can be abusers too, but the statistics show they're less likely to be. By a lot.

Maybe the father works 60-hour or longer weeks. Maybe the father doesn't want custody; it certainly does happen. Maybe your statistics are wrong or out of date. Also remember that, after a certain age, the child itself is generally considered entitled to at very least participate in the decision. (My best friend, when she was older, moved between her parents' houses depending on her schooling needs at the time.) According to the census bureau, your numbers are off by 50&#37;. And, of course, since we know details in very, very few of those cases, we can only rely on what polls tell us.

And one of the things the polls I've found tell us is that 40% of children whose fathers live outside the home have no contact with them. Consider that number and what it does to those custody figures.

But you didn't look that number up, did you?

Yes. There are women who abuse the system. I don't dispute that, and I never have. However, there are men who abuse it, too, and men who aren't worthy to care for their own children just as there are women who aren't worthy to care for their own children. There are plenty of people who go through mediation instead of court. There are plenty of women who get no alimony; figures I encountered yesterday suggest that 25% of women in Connecticut don't, and that was the only state I found figures for.

It isn't just your attitude toward the court system that's misogynistic. It's your attitude toward every woman you've mentioned, just about.

Graham wouldn't let me spend all his money. I don't have access to it, and I shouldn't, because I'm bad with money. When he comes home and before he left, he's in charge of organizing the money. I can spend my disability check how I want to now, but $349 a month isn't exactly going to break the bank. And if I get a federal check, which should be higher by several hundred dollars, at least half of it will go to Graham every month, because I want to pay what expenses I can. But stories like that aren't sensational, so you don't hear them.

crosscountry
2007-Jun-25, 06:37 PM
oh, ad homenym

I hope I spelled that correctly. Someone correct me.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-25, 06:39 PM
And yes, I know that women can be abusers too, but the statistics show they're less likely to be. By a lot.

To be fair, statistics are based only on what gets reported. How many men would tell anyone that a woman abuses them?

crosscountry
2007-Jun-25, 07:28 PM
a lot of men like to be abused ;)

Noclevername
2007-Jun-25, 08:34 PM
a lot of men like to be abused ;)

Big difference between role-playing and getting your ____ kicked. Some men won't fight a woman, even if she's hurting him. And those are the same men who are least likely to report it.

Donnie B.
2007-Jun-25, 08:57 PM
Well, isn't this a cheery topic?

publius
2007-Jun-25, 08:59 PM
I knew one case locally of a husband-beater. It was basically Big Bertha and the 90lb weakling. He would come home drunk on the weekends from time to time and she would beat the living manure out of him.

After he died, she went to his grave every day for years and talked to him, crying her eyes out they said.

-Richard

Noclevername
2007-Jun-25, 09:03 PM
After he died, she went to his grave every day for years and talked to him, crying her eyes out they said.


Sadly, that's often the case. My grandmother was married to a rotten, selfish :evil:[can't swear here.] who constantly verbally and emotionally belitted her, called her a "stupid thing", made her sleep on the couch so he could have the bed to himself, and yet after he died she spent the rest of her life calling him a "saint" and crying because she missed him so much.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-25, 09:26 PM
Big difference between role-playing and getting your ____ kicked. Some men won't fight a woman, even if she's hurting him. And those are the same men who are least likely to report it.


Well, I don't like to hit anyone; but, if I do, I always assume that the person will return the favor in kind, perhaps with interest. I make that assumption whether the person in question is a man or a woman.

I won't start something I don't think I could finish, and I'd hope that I'd be smart enough to not start something with a person who is at least twice as strong as I am ;) (which the average guy would be). My husband can bench press over 400 lbs and can shoulder-fire an M-60 like it was a rifle (he was a SeaBee in the Navy); I'd have to be suicidal to start messing with him! I am a feminist, but I am not stupid either!

That said, the friend of mine who was found dead a week-and-a-half ago was abusive to his wife; it has been very hard for me to come to this realization, but the evidence is incontrovertible. I know this to be true from hearing this from her and several different people and from seeing the bruises myself (she lied at the time, saying the huge, round bruise on her face was 'poison ivy'). She loved him very much and did nothing to deserve being slapped around, punched, thrown bodily out of the house, etc. She even lied to cover up what was happening to her; she eventually had to flee to House of Ruth with her daughter to escape him. I realize he was a drug addict and desperately ill, but this does NOT excuse what he did. So, yes, publius, there are women who abuse men, sometimes even physically, but the only cases I've seen so far (I've known other women in abusive relationships) have been men physically-abusing women. This is not to say that all men are abusive or the majority of men are abusers. I believe that abusive men constitute a very small fraction of the whole, much as golddigging women constitute a small fraction. This fraction happens to wreak a lot of havoc, however, male and female.

I do think that the pendulum may have swung a little too far in the woman's favor in divorce court, Publius, as I personally know of a lot of cases where the guys got royally-shafted by their wives when the wives were at fault for the divorce (due to infidelity, etc). I don't have hard numbers to back me up, however; I'm just relying on experience. Back when I was growing up, women were the ones getting shafted in divorce court on a regular basis, my mother being one of them (although much of that was her fault for refusing to pursue alimony). I'm not saying that 'now, it's the man's turn' or something like that, because I never think injustice is justifiable. However, the evolution of divorce laws in this country (i.e.: the entire 'no-fault divorce' concept) have made injustice inevitable, I think.

I don't believe in play-slapping either--too easy to get hurt doing that.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-25, 09:33 PM
I won't start something I don't think I could finish,

You started this thread, didn't ya? :)

publius
2007-Jun-25, 10:02 PM
Sadly, that's often the case. My grandmother was married to a rotten, selfish :evil:[can't swear here.] who constantly verbally and emotionally belitted her, called her a "stupid thing", made her sleep on the couch so he could have the bed to himself, and yet after he died she spent the rest of her life calling him a "saint" and crying because she missed him so much.

It does get curious. There was an old timer around, nicknamed "Red", who was quite a character. He fought on Okinawa in WWII, was one who talk about it point blank, and he would tell some tales that would make Stephen King cringe. We he got back, he became quite a "bad boy". One can wonder if it was what he was exposed to in the war. Probably so. Anyway, ol' Red was just about the best fighter around. No matter how tough you are or think you are, there's always somebody tougher, but in Red's case, those were few and far between.

Take a typical fight. Both guys will sort of "rooster" around, slowly escalating. When it gets physical, it's just pushing, and they hesitate and only slowly start. Most of the time. Well, with Red, there was none of that. :) He was lightning. When someone challenged him, there was no warning, just a blur, and Red's opponent was usually lying on the floor in a bloody mess. He cleaned out a bar one night, and it took 5 deputies to get him cleaned out. They knew Red, and when they learned it was Red at that bar they were going have to settle down, they sent 5 deputies. :)

These bars were the type of places that even Jerry Springer wouldn't go into, understand. Rough places indeed. Anyway, in his old age, he would regale us all with his exploits in those bars. And he was honest, because he would tell about the rare times when he did run into someone tougher who mopped up the floor with him.

One of his bar stories was a really mad wife who came in looking for her sorry husband, who of course was in there drinking and messin' where he shouldn't be messin'. She pulled out a knife and came after him, cutting him up (superficially for the most part on his arms, they said) pretty good. All the while, she was screaming, "I love you, you son of a [female dog]".

And another one was ol' Red was in some joint, and some drunken guy starts beating on a woman. Red would not tolerate that, so he proceeded to turn loose the lightning on the guy. He felt a sharp pain in his back. The woman had stabbed him with a fork, screaming "Get off my man!".

Yet another good one was he was going to some place. He kept a bottle of liquor under the seat of his car. Someone discovered that, and when he would come back out, he'd find the bottle empty. To remedy that, he got an empty bottle and urinated in it and put it the other seat.

When he came back out, well, he felt a blinding pain and then darkness. When he came to, he realized his liquor thief had hit him over the head with that bottle, and dumped his own urine all over him. He never figured out who the thief was.

That was ol' Red in his hayday. Interestingly, it was a woman who straightened him out. She was way out of his class, and what she saw in him, no one could understand. But she put him on the straight and narrow and made a decent man out of him. :)

He died last year, and it was an overflow crowd at the funeral home. I think it set a local record for the number of people that showed up to pay respects. He was well like and well respected. And that included me. Big time. He never finished high school, but he taught me a lot of the things one doesn't learn in academia.

-Richard

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-25, 10:04 PM
You started this thread, didn't ya? :)

Oh, yikes, I didn't think it would turn into a divorce debate! :eek:

Sigh...:rolleyes:

:)

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jun-25, 11:08 PM
Oh, yikes, I didn't think it would turn into a divorce debate! :eek:

Sigh...:rolleyes:

:)
Threads are like children you just don't know how the will turn out.

crosscountry
2007-Jun-25, 11:13 PM
Oh, yikes, I didn't think it would turn into a divorce debate! :eek:

Sigh...:rolleyes:

:)


but you're still here with us. so prophesy is not unfulfilled yet.

publius
2007-Jun-25, 11:21 PM
About "misogyny". Yep, that's what you get called when delicate ears hear things they don't want to hear, namely about women behaving in less than stellar ways. Or I guess what I said is misogynist -- from the perspective of the Women's Studies dept at Wellesley or Berkely, the entire position of which can be summed up as "Men are pigs and we hate 'em".

I was going to say from the prospective of the Church of Steinemology, but that bunch is moderate, if not even conservative compared to the current bunch, such as Catherine "All sex is rape" MacKinnon, for instance.

And it's that bunch that is pretty much responsible for the all the misandry discussed here.

-Richard

Noclevername
2007-Jun-26, 04:03 AM
And it's that bunch that is pretty much responsible for the all the misandry discussed here.

There are a lot of other lawyers, judges, plaintiffs and defendants who maybe also share a little resposibility.

publius
2007-Jun-26, 04:12 AM
Just ran across this quote from way back to show just how far the above radical bunch actually goes. This should be of keen interest here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Harding



"Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica is a 'rape manual' because 'science is a male rape of female nature'."


That is an extreme example the stuff that has been called the Science Wars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars

Which led a physicist named Alan Sokal to see just what nonsense he could get published in a scholarly "cultural studies" type journal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

-Richard

publius
2007-Jun-26, 04:17 AM
There are a lot of other lawyers, judges, plaintiffs and defendants who maybe also share a little resposibility.

The radical bunch are the "true believers", the above are those who just make use of it, many simply to make a buck. Hucksters always take advantage of do-gooders and true believers. :)

-Richard

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-26, 06:05 AM
Just ran across this quote from way back to show just how far the above radical bunch actually goes. This should be of keen interest here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Harding



That is an extreme example the stuff that has been called the Science Wars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars

Which led a physicist named Alan Sokal to see just what nonsense he could get published in a scholarly "cultural studies" type journal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

-Richard

Well, as a woman AND a scientist, I find quotes like Sandra Harding's highly objectionable for many reasons, not the least of which that it makes feminism look bad.

But, as you have said, these views are extreme. Not all women are are castrating man-eaters, just as all men are not misogynists. :) I happen to like men very much, actually; I have more male friends than female friends, to my husband's occasional consternation. ;)

Yup, I'm still with y'all, crosscountry! ;)

Gillianren
2007-Jun-26, 07:26 AM
You have a fondness for the extreme example, don't you, Publius?

As has been stated, a majority of women find statements like that at best ludicrous and at worst actively offensive. I certainly do. I also find it offensive when women go out of their way to get everything they can out of men who have done nothing more than grow apart from them. I find it offensive when it is assumed that either sex should get all the benefits out of divorce. Again, the time was not that long ago when a woman would lose custody, her home, and her security if she divorced her husband--or he divorced her.

I would be happy if every child had loving parents who wanted custody of them. They don't. I would be happy if every divorce were settled in a way that was truly equitable. They aren't. I would be happy if most of the power in the land weren't held by men. It isn't. Yeah. Family court is often weighted toward the mother, and that's not fair. No more, however, is it fair to assume that all women who come out ahead in a divorce do so because of inherent injustice in the system.

jamesabrown
2007-Jun-26, 02:37 PM
Well, as long as we're talking about unhappy marriages, I want to throw up a trial balloon and see how it flies in this atmosphere.

The following is a conception that I have become aware of, and it can be summarized essentially as:

All sexual problems between a (hetero) couple are primarily perceived to be the man's fault.

For example:

If a man says, "We aren't having enough sex," then he is perceived to be a maniac who won't give his poor wife a break. She will be sympathized as having to put up with the endless appetites of her insatiable husband.

If a man has an affair, then he is perceived to be an immature skirt-chaser. His wife is a martyr who silently suffers at home.

If a woman says, "We aren't having enough sex," then she is perceived to be a liberated woman fully in tune with her body and who has the self-confidence to demand her rights. Meanwhile, her husband will be looked on as a milquetoast wimp who may be secretly gay.

If a woman has an affair, it's because her needs weren't being met at home, and she has been driven into the arms of another man who understands her. Her husband will be perceived as a callous and uncaring lout, either a workaholic or who may be secretly gay.

Of course, we all know cases where the opposite is true, but to me the vast majority of times I sense that certain stereotypes are used to filter what we know about men, women, and their relationships. For example, men are supposed to be strong and silent; therefore, they are not allowed to complain about their sex lives. Women are the gentle, fragile sex, therefore any imbalance in a couple's appetite is going to damage the poor woman's psyche. I knew a man whose wife divorced him because he wasn't satisfying her sexually, and the poor guy had to bend over backwards to convince his listeners about his great prowess, because hey, everybody knows that if a man can't satisfy his woman then he must have "size" issues, and she's free to move on with no guilt or regrets, right?

This could be just my own personal selective bias coloring my perceptions, but I've heard confirmation in other circles, and I would welcome your opinions here.

Moderators, I double-checked the rules, and I understand the delicateness of this subject matter. While the rules specifically forbid certain language, I am unsure about certain topics. That said, if you feel this post is inappropriate, please feel free to delete it and you won't hear a word of complaint from me.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-26, 02:42 PM
This could be just my own personal selective bias coloring my perceptions,

Yes.

Delvo
2007-Jun-26, 04:38 PM
This could be just my own personal selective bias coloring my perceptions, but I've heard confirmation in other circles, and I would welcome your opinions here.I made the same generalized observation of common jokes and such myself long ago, but on this particular issue, I've even got one that's a matter of just plain facts, not perception. There was a survey several years ago about what time of day people most want to have sex and enjoy it the most. The dominant answer for both sexes on both questions was morning. But the given explanation was what stood out. The reason why women like it in the morning was that men are better "performers" in the morning... but the reason why men like it in the morning wasn't because women are better "performers" then. No mention was even made that women might need to "perform" or ever have variable "performance" or "performance" issues at all. No, men's enjoyment of sex in the morning was just because that's when men are horniest.

So complete responsibility for both people's enjoyment is all on the man (which means complete blame for a lack of it on either person's part is, too). These people obviously set up this "study" to produce the only results they were ever going to allow it to produce.

Another one that's just too stark of a difference to be mere perception is the abundance of penis enhancement and impotence treatments and the non-existence of pills to make a woman's vagina tighter or slicker, or to cure the female equivalent of impotence ("female impotence"), a bloodflow problem that keeps her from having the blood engorgement that's equivalent to a male erection ("vaginal erection"). No, if there's any problem in either of those areas, it's because he's inadequate, either in his penis or in his ability to thoroughly "arouse" her, so women don't need treatments because they could never possibly actually have a problem to treat...

Gillianren
2007-Jun-26, 07:10 PM
So complete responsibility for both people's enjoyment is all on the man (which means complete blame for a lack of it on either person's part is, too). These people obviously set up this "study" to produce the only results they were ever going to allow it to produce.

I hate to tell you this, but a woman's pleasure is a more delicate thing. It does have a lot to do with the man's performance. (Size matters in rather the opposite way that men think, too; too big is a bigger problem than too small.) If you're not aware of that . . . .


Another one that's just too stark of a difference to be mere perception is the abundance of penis enhancement and impotence treatments and the non-existence of pills to make a woman's vagina tighter or slicker, or to cure the female equivalent of impotence ("female impotence"), a bloodflow problem that keeps her from having the blood engorgement that's equivalent to a male erection ("vaginal erection"). No, if there's any problem in either of those areas, it's because he's inadequate, either in his penis or in his ability to thoroughly "arouse" her, so women don't need treatments because they could never possibly actually have a problem to treat...

Actually, it's because the health care industry has generally not cared about women's problems. Studies will back me up on this. Women don't have as much of their self-esteem tied up in their sexual bits (just their breasts!). And let's face it, when insurance companies would rather pay for Viagra than birth control, I don't think it's evidence that everything is centered around women.

crosscountry
2007-Jun-26, 11:57 PM
Ever watch the Vagina Monologues? If women aren't being represented it may be because they don't talk about or report issues.

Larry Jacks
2007-Jun-27, 12:01 AM
And let's face it, when insurance companies would rather pay for Viagra than birth control, I don't think it's evidence that everything is centered around women.

That's really an apples and oranges comparison and one that I hear frequently from people who aren't thinking clearly. Erectile disfunction is commonly caused by medical conditions such as prostate problems, diabetes, and high blood pressure. Drugs like Viagra serve to restore normal biological function. On the other hand, birth control pills serve to disrupt normal function. Of the two, which is the more reasonable thing for an medical insurance company to pay for, something that restores function or something that disrupts it?

publius
2007-Jun-27, 12:31 AM
That's really an apples and oranges comparison and one that I hear frequently from people who aren't thinking clearly. Erectile disfunction is commonly caused by medical conditions such as prostate problems, diabetes, and high blood pressure. Drugs like Viagra serve to restore normal biological function. On the other hand, birth control pills serve to disrupt normal function. Of the two, which is the more reasonable thing for an medical insurance company to pay for, something that restores function or something that disrupts it?

Yeah, that's what they all say. :) I'm against insurance compnanies paying for either, unless one wants to pay extra for such stuff. Not that I'm any fan of insurance companies mind you -- there's a lot they ought to pay for that is obvious they should, but they weasel out. But I do hold them a notch or two higher than drug companies....Anyway, stuff like Viagra is one of the the things that make me sick about drug companies.

In some minority of the prescriptions filled, there is real "dysfunction"
there. In the others, it's nothing but a recreational drug being pushed, with winks and nods, as if it's treating some medical condition. Heck, I've had a doctor offer it to me, "you want to try some of that, come in and I'll write you a script".

It's nothing but a recreational drug for the most part that is making them billions. No different from alcohol in that respect (but it does add to the performance rather than dimishing it....... :) ). If they'd just admit that and sell the stuff over the counter (or at bars), fine and dandy, but no, they've got to pretend it's some proper medical condition for everyone (which allows doctors to get their cut, etc, etc).

-Richard

publius
2007-Jun-27, 12:47 AM
Heck, you effectively don't need a prescription anyway, if you just want to try a pill or two. The stuff floats around here so much, there's always someone willing to "lend" you a pill if you desire, or pay $10 for one or so. I've known of poker games where pills of the stuff were part of the pot.

All of that is a federal crime, mind you, the same thing as if done with Oxycontin, Hillybilly Heroin and similar, but nobody cares. Everybody knows that goes on and approves with winks and nods. Again, might as well be OTC. But that won't happen (at least for a while), as there's just too much money to made off it for everyone in the chain.

-Richard

Maksutov
2007-Jun-27, 04:41 AM
I must admit I've found the content of the last few posts shocking.

The next thing you know, advertising agencies will be using sex to sell cars and razor blades.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jun-27, 04:45 AM
I must admit I've found the content of the last few posts shocking.

The next thing you know, advertising agencies will be using sex to sell cars and razor blades.
And a rich spoiled brat will get a lot of news coverage for getting out prison early.

publius
2007-Jun-27, 05:46 AM
The oldest profession is always what sells. Heck, consider all that internet porn. The latest and greatest technology being used for the oldest game in the book. :lol:


I'll tell you what will be greatest selling thing of all time, and the outift that first makes it will make more money than we can imagine and will be well capable of ruling the world by controlling it: virtual reality sex. :lol:, truly interactive porn. Hook the brain up to some contraption that can simulate sex (with whomoever is the user's dream girl) and that's all she wrote.

Something like that would make heroin seem non-addictive. Let's get to work on that and we'll rule the world. The world may come to end, though, as production just ceases as everyone is occupied.

-Richard

Noclevername
2007-Jun-27, 05:52 AM
Something like that would make heroin seem non-addictive. Let's get to work on that and we'll rule the world. The world may come to end, though, as production just ceases as everyone is occupied.

(knock, knock, knock)
"Honey? Honey, you've been in the holodeck all weekend, I'm starting to get worried! The kids are asking where you are... Honey?" (knock, knock, knock)

publius
2007-Jun-27, 06:05 AM
Holodeck, that's it -- I'd forgot about that little Star Trek technology, but that's the way to put it. Now, you know that's just about all any such technology would be used for.

Just imagine what you could charge for that -- any woman you desire as your complete sex slave. Nay, it goes beyond mere money. Heck, you could get armies to pledge allegiance to you for the privilege. Provided one could maintain control of the technology, you could render governments impotent overnight. One could truly become a James Bond villian.

But it could be used for some good at least temporarilly. That would be the one thing that could pacify the Middle East, I think.

-Richard

Gillianren
2007-Jun-27, 07:47 AM
That's really an apples and oranges comparison and one that I hear frequently from people who aren't thinking clearly. Erectile disfunction is commonly caused by medical conditions such as prostate problems, diabetes, and high blood pressure. Drugs like Viagra serve to restore normal biological function. On the other hand, birth control pills serve to disrupt normal function. Of the two, which is the more reasonable thing for an medical insurance company to pay for, something that restores function or something that disrupts it?

Yes, and pregnancy costs insurance companies a ton. Isn't it cheaper to help prevent it? Also, birth control itself is way cheaper. And so is caring for the health problems of women with fewer pregnancies; pregnancy is very bad for the human body. Why do you think so many women (still!) die of it?

crosscountry
2007-Jun-27, 10:07 AM
But it could be used for some good at least temporarilly. That would be the one thing that could pacify the Middle East, I think.

-Richard



that's an issue. these things will be expensive. the western countries will be holed up in some virtual reality room while the countries that don't like us will still be having 8 babies, 2 of whom are willing to die to kill us.

Stuart van Onselen
2007-Jun-27, 12:19 PM
Yes, and pregnancy costs insurance companies a ton. Isn't it cheaper to help prevent it? Also, birth control itself is way cheaper. And so is caring for the health problems of women with fewer pregnancies; pregnancy is very bad for the human body. Why do you think so many women (still!) die of it?

Every time I feel like whining about the lousy care I get out of my HMO, I remember that I could have been born an American, subject to the insanities and contradictions of the American health-care "system", and I rejoice that I wasn't.

(Of course, first prize, as far as health-care is concerned, would probably be to be born in one of the Western European states, who, AFAIK, have the best value-for-money health systems in the world.)

Stuart van Onselen
2007-Jun-27, 12:22 PM
that's an issue. these things will be expensive. the western countries will be holed up in some virtual reality room while the countries that don't like us will still be having 8 babies, 2 of whom are willing to die to kill us.

Bother! I want to reply, but that would be pure politics, and thus illegal here. And I want to swear in frustration because I can't reply, but I can't swear either. Leading to more frustration...

I sense the beginnings an infinite recursion into madness here. :lol:

crosscountry
2007-Jun-27, 12:22 PM
you're right about that. France and Germany have outstanding systems.


England is a little slower than most and not any cheaper.


I think the Scandanavian countries are pretty good too.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-27, 01:04 PM
If a woman says, "We aren't having enough sex," then she is perceived to be a liberated woman fully in tune with her body and who has the self-confidence to demand her rights.

Actually, when a woman says she wants more sex, it is more of a cry of desperation than of liberation, unless she is just saying something petty and mean to justify fooling around on her man. No woman likes having to beg the man she loves for some lovin'--there is nothing self-affirming or liberating about that. Women's mags talk about this problem all the time, and it is considered to be a problem..a depressingly common one, from what I can gather.

Click Ticker
2007-Jun-27, 01:11 PM
Yes, and pregnancy costs insurance companies a ton. Isn't it cheaper to help prevent it? Also, birth control itself is way cheaper. And so is caring for the health problems of women with fewer pregnancies; pregnancy is very bad for the human body. Why do you think so many women (still!) die of it?

The number of women who will get pregnant because they aren't willing to spring for the cost of B/C is minimal compared to the cost of providing B/C perscriptions for decades for the millions of women on B/C (some of which find themselves pregnant anyway because it didn't work or they missed a dose or whatever.) I'm not saying it's right not to cover it, I'm just saying they wouldn't do it that way if the cost/benefit analysis didn't work in their favor.

Many companies, however, will purchase a B/C rider on their policy because the cost to them in losing an employees productivity for 12 weeks plus the various other absences that come with raising a child is much greater than the cost of the rider.

crosscountry
2007-Jun-27, 01:18 PM
Actually, when a woman says she wants more sex, it is more of a cry of desperation than of liberation, unless she is just saying something petty and mean to justify fooling around on her man. No woman likes having to beg the man she loves for some lovin'--there is nothing self-affirming or liberating about that. Women's mags talk about this problem all the time, and it is considered to be a problem..a depressingly common one, from what I can gather.


I lived with my then girlfriend and exfiancee for a year and a half. Things went both ways.

I'm not blaming her, she was a great girl, but she could use sex as leverage. Sometimes no sometimes yes. The person asking changed as her mood changed. A lot of that was due to stress in her work, and she still doesn't handle stress well although she's getting a promotion and more responsibilty in August. The military caused that and our split up too. I couldn't move when the Air Force told her it was time.



When a girl can't get the attention of her man there is probably a problem. I won't speculate about infidelity because I've never been there, but I did find other things more interesting at times.

The other way around: sometimes a glass of wine helped her mood. Others nothing would.

jamesabrown
2007-Jun-27, 01:20 PM
Actually, when a woman says she wants more sex, it is more of a cry of desperation than of liberation, unless she is just saying something petty and mean to justify fooling around on her man. No woman likes having to beg the man she loves for some lovin'--there is nothing self-affirming or liberating about that. Women's mags talk about this problem all the time, and it is considered to be a problem..a depressingly common one, from what I can gather.

Maybe its because I'm a man, but my take is completely different.

Look, I know that we all know about the stereotype that men want to have sex all the time, much more than women. I've known many women to complain about their husbands constantly after them. I've never heard a man complain that his wife wanted too much sex, except as a joke on a sitcom, which is a case of the exception proving the rule. Billy Crystal joked, "Women need a good reason to have sex; men just need a place."

So if I hear a woman say, "We're splitting up; he wasn't giving me enough sex," my first thought is not, "What's wrong with you that you aren't satisfied with what he can give you, can't you be more sensitive to his needs, why is it always about you, etc." My first thought is more like, "What's wrong with him? A hot woman wants more bedroom gymnastics and he's, what, not in the mood?"

Dunno. That's just my take on it. I'm not a woman, and I don't read women's mags. I do read the covers of women's mags in checkout lines, though, and it seems the headlines on Cosmo and Glamour assume that women are sexual beings and constantly looking for new ways to please their men. I don't see headlines like, "How to cope when he won't put out," or "Maintaining your self-esteem when resorting to begging in the bedroom." But if you say they're out there I'll take your word for it.

Maksutov
2007-Jun-27, 01:31 PM
[edit]The other way around: sometimes a glass of wine helped her mood. Others nothing would.Hence the expression
Candy is dandy,
But liquor is quicker.My experience has been that wine is fine.

Until, sometimes, the ensuing morning... http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

Palomar
2007-Jun-27, 01:33 PM
Maybe its because I'm a man, but my take is completely different.

Look, I know that we all know about the stereotype that men want to have sex all the time, much more than women. I've known many women to complain about their husbands constantly after them. I've never heard a man complain that his wife wanted too much sex, except as a joke on a sitcom, which is a case of the exception proving the rule. Billy Crystal joked, "Women need a good reason to have sex; men just need a place."

So if I hear a woman say, "We're splitting up; he wasn't giving me enough sex," my first thought is not, "What's wrong with you that you aren't satisfied with what he can give you, can't you be more sensitive to his needs, why is it always about you, etc." My first thought is more like, "What's wrong with him? A hot woman wants more bedroom gymnastics and he's, what, not in the mood?"

Dunno. That's just my take on it. I'm not a woman, and I don't read women's mags. I do read the covers of women's mags in checkout lines, though, and it seems the headlines on Cosmo and Glamour assume that women are sexual beings and constantly looking for new ways to please their men. I don't see headlines like, "How to cope when he won't put out," or "Maintaining your self-esteem when resorting to begging in the bedroom." But if you say they're out there I'll take your word for it.

I'm a woman, and I agree with what you've said. Will add to it that it's also definitely (imo) male fantasy that women are always SO "ready"; that we're insatiable sexually voracious creatures. Psychology would call it "projection." :lol: That is also the basis for the wild popularity of lesbian porn; this fantasy that women are so "sexed up" and insatiable that if they can't get it with a man, they WILL with a woman. :rolleyes: And of course there's enough young, good-looking women out there who will pander to that stereotype to make good $$$ in movies, magazines, etc.

I'm 42 and have yet to see many women who are merely genuinely friendly (platonically of course) with each other. So dream on, guys...

Maksutov
2007-Jun-27, 01:37 PM
Quite right, Palomar.

The "Peg Bundy" syndrome is a fabrication.

In reality, one might try to get blood from a rock.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-27, 01:39 PM
Hence the expressionMy experience has been that wine is fine.

Until, sometimes, the ensuing morning... http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif


That reminds me of that old bar sign: Poker in the front, liquor in the back. ;)

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-27, 01:41 PM
Quite right, Palomar.

The "Peg Bundy" syndrome is a fabrication.

In reality, one might try to get blood from a rock.


Now, now, not every woman is like that. :naughty: I consider myself to be quite lusty and am after my husband quite a bit. :)

Maksutov
2007-Jun-27, 01:59 PM
That reminds me of that old bar sign: Poker in the front, liquor in the back. ;)Good one!

Back in the 70s, I built a wet bar in my basement.

I named it "Ye Silent Woman".

I even hung a sign over the bar indicating the name of the establishment.

My wife objected to the logo (a reproduction of an actual limner tavern sign from the 1700s) which looked something like this:

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/1605/silentwoman1pe6.th.jpg (http://img407.imageshack.us/my.php?image=silentwoman1pe6.jpg)

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-27, 02:39 PM
Let's not bicker about who killed . . . er . . . got who pregnant.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-27, 02:40 PM
Good one!

Back in the 70s, I built a wet bar in my basement.

I named it "Ye Silent Woman".

I even hung a sign over the bar indicating the name of the establishment.

My wife objected to the logo (a reproduction of an actual limner tavern sign from the 1700s) which looked something like this:

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/1605/silentwoman1pe6.th.jpg (http://img407.imageshack.us/my.php?image=silentwoman1pe6.jpg)


Aaahhhh! It's the headless waitress! Run!

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-27, 02:42 PM
Every time I see Viagra mentioned all I can think about is Rush Limbaugh with his bottle, neatly hidden away. I'm not a woman but I can't imagine a more ghastly image than Rush approaching the bed with his newly endowed powers. Eeewww!

Noclevername
2007-Jun-27, 02:49 PM
Every time I see Viagra mentioned all I can think about is Rush Limbaugh with his bottle, neatly hidden away. I'm not a woman but I can't imagine a more ghastly image than Rush approaching the bed with his newly endowed powers. Eeewww!

:sick::sick::sick:

I'm sure Mr. "All junkies should be put to death" first discovered the wonders of Better Loving Through Chemistry when one of the Big Blues accidentally got mixed into one his other bottles of under-the-counter recreational "medicines". :rolleyes:

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-27, 03:31 PM
Every time I see Viagra mentioned all I can think about is Rush Limbaugh with his bottle, neatly hidden away. I'm not a woman but I can't imagine a more ghastly image than Rush approaching the bed with his newly endowed powers. Eeewww!

:sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick:

Delvo
2007-Jun-27, 03:54 PM
Look, I know that we all know about the stereotypeStrange... when you set that up at first as a "stereotype", I took it as meaning that you were going to say it was false. (It's all just a pretense, at best.) But then the rest of your post looked like the words of someone who actually buys into it.

jamesabrown
2007-Jun-27, 04:42 PM
Strange... when you set that up at first as a "stereotype", I took it as meaning that you were going to say it was false. (It's all just a pretense, at best.) But then the rest of your post looked like the words of someone who actually buys into it.

Well, is it a stereotype, or is there truth to it? I guess that depends on the definition of stereotype. Is it "commonly-held wisdom with no basis in facts"? Or is it just commonly-held wisdom? Do men desire sex more than women? It certainly seems that way to me, but again, that could be just my selective bias.

To me, women's sex drive seems to be erected upon a house of cards, with the slightest variations in many factors bringing the whole thing down. (Not tonight, I've got a headache, I'm menstruating, I haven't washed my hair, the kids might hear, the dishes aren't done, I've got indigestion, I'm tired, I just washed my hair, I'm not in the mood, etc.) It goes back to the Billy Crystal joke earlier. The internal plumbing of women is so much more complicated than that of men that, to me, it seems that the slightest thing will stop up the pipes.

Now if I'm way off base, if what I perceive is truly an urban myth of sorts, then fine. I'll work on readjusting my thinking. But I'll need a lot more evidence other than anecdotal "Well, I'm a woman and I'm horny" type stories.

Donnie B.
2007-Jun-27, 04:50 PM
To me, women's sex drive seems to be erected upon a house of cards,... ...so to speak.

Palomar
2007-Jun-27, 04:50 PM
Every time I see Viagra mentioned all I can think about is Rush Limbaugh with his bottle, neatly hidden away. I'm not a woman but I can't imagine a more ghastly image than Rush approaching the bed with his newly endowed powers. Eeewww!

:lol::lol::lol:

Reminds me of medical reports I used to transcribe from an account in southern Florida, 5 years ago: All these old men, even in their early 80s wanting "implants" and Viagra. :sick:

Too much bikini-gazing on the beach I guess.

Must have gotten some action via the Senior Center, though. ::shrugs::

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-27, 04:57 PM
:lol::lol::lol:

Reminds me of medical reports I used to transcribe from an account in southern Florida, 5 years ago: All these old men, even in their early 80s wanting "implants" and Viagra. :sick:

Too much bikini-gazing on the beach I guess.

Must have gotten some action via the Senior Center, though. ::shrugs::

I forget which stand-up comedian said this:

(paraphrased)

"What's the point of Viagra? It's for fat old men that women wouldn't want touching them anyway!"

Click Ticker
2007-Jun-27, 04:57 PM
To me, women's sex drive seems to be erected upon a house of cards, with the slightest variations in many factors bringing the whole thing down. (Not tonight, I've got a headache, I'm menstruating, I haven't washed my hair, the kids might hear, the dishes aren't done, I've got indigestion, I'm tired, I just washed my hair, I'm not in the mood, etc.) It goes back to the Billy Crystal joke earlier. The internal plumbing of women is so much more complicated than that of men that, to me, it seems that the slightest thing will stop up the pipes.

It's not just the sex drive. It's everything.

Me - "Want to go to dinner tonight?"
Her - "Sure"
Me - "Name the place." - only when guys say name the place, they really mean it. Anyplace that serves food would be perfect.
Her - "I don't know, you pick."
Me - "How about Restaurant A?"
Her - "I once had a soda with too little ice there - I can't go there."
Me - "How about Restaurant B?"
Her - "I don't like that type of ethnic food."
Me - "How about you pick - I guarantee, wherever it is - I'll eat there."
Her - "Surprise me"

And on and on it goes. Drives me nuts.

As far as sex drive goes - it's all part of natural selection. If men and women were wired the same - we'd never have kids due to the slim odds of two people being in the mood at the same time. Either that, or disease would run rampant and the poor women would constantly be pregnant. Men always have to be ready just in case they happen to run across a woman who is ready. Particularly back when population centers were few and far between.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-27, 05:01 PM
I subscribe to the Quest for Fire style of foreplay. :)

publius
2007-Jun-27, 05:04 PM
As far as sex drive goes - it's all part of natural selection. If men and women were wired the same - we'd never have kids due to the slim odds of two people being in the mood at the same time. Either that, or disease would run rampant and the poor women would constantly be pregnant. Men always have to be ready just in case they happen to run across a woman who is ready. Particularly back when population centers were few and far between.

Amen. If men were like women, not much sex would happen. If women were like men, too much sex would happen. Way, way too much.


-Richard

Click Ticker
2007-Jun-27, 05:09 PM
Amen. If men were like women, not much sex would happen. If women were like men, too much sex would happen. Way, way too much.


-Richard

That's why we invented sports. To pass the time in between.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-27, 06:52 PM
The number of women who will get pregnant because they aren't willing to spring for the cost of B/C is minimal compared to the cost of providing B/C perscriptions for decades for the millions of women on B/C (some of which find themselves pregnant anyway because it didn't work or they missed a dose or whatever.) I'm not saying it's right not to cover it, I'm just saying they wouldn't do it that way if the cost/benefit analysis didn't work in their favor.

Many companies, however, will purchase a B/C rider on their policy because the cost to them in losing an employees productivity for 12 weeks plus the various other absences that come with raising a child is much greater than the cost of the rider.

You know, it's not that I'm not willing to. It's that I can't. Blessedly, Washington State has realized that paying for millions of women's birth control is cheaper than paying for the resulting babies. But birth control isn't cheap, and it is (almost) always the woman's responsibility. I get a shot. My boyfriend does nothing. My best friend, who desperately wants a child (when she can afford it), takes a daily pill. Her boyfriend, who doesn't, does nothing.

I also think it's an incorrect stereotype that women don't want to have sex as often as men do. I think women aren't supposed to want it, by societal standards, and haven't been for thousands of years. It's true that female anatomy is trickier, but the man can, with a little effort, get a woman into the mood quite ably if she shows any interest at all.

In fact, when a woman shows a healthy sex drive, there are all sorts of unpleasant words for her. There are very, very few corresponding words for men with healthy sex drives.

Click Ticker
2007-Jun-27, 08:03 PM
Blessedly, Washington State has realized that paying for millions of women's birth control is cheaper than paying for the resulting babies.

Governments typically make decisions that will garner the support of the voting public, they don't often make fiscally responsible ones. For profit insurance companies would provide birth control coverage if they felt the number of resulting pregnancies would be so greatly reduced as to save them money in the long run. People talk of the ongoing healthcare of the resulting child. A couple children born to those women who would opt not to get BC rather than pay cash is minimal compared to the millions of perscription written. There are some pretty smart numbers people that are paid handsomely to figure all this stuff out. Like I said - employers have a different interest in mind and often will pay for a rider to make certain B/C is covered.


I also think it's an incorrect stereotype that women don't want to have sex as often as men do. I think women aren't supposed to want it, by societal standards, and haven't been for thousands of years. It's true that female anatomy is trickier, but the man can, with a little effort, get a woman into the mood quite ably if she shows any interest at all.

I tend to think most stereotypes and generalizations get that way for a reason. In general, they are true. Of course there are exceptions. Maybe even a lot of exceptions - but in general they hold true. Studies have shown time and time again that women don't even think about sex with near the frequency that men do. It's not a good or bad thing - it's just a difference in the general make up of the two genders. If women wanted sex as much as men, what person would have time to invent fire or the wheel?

"You cold?"
"Uh-huh."
"Me too."

Music begins .... Bow-chicka-bow-bow

Rather then:

"Nothing's happening here until you can figure out a way to warm this cave up!"

One more thing about the insurance companies. The risk to the insurance company of any one person being a lifetime customer is pretty minimal as well given the frequency with which people tend to change employers these days. What this means to the insurance company is that even if a child is born only because they didn't provide BC coverage, the insurance company likely won't be responsible for that childs medical expenses for too many years. With the BC, they pay until that person decides they want to have a child and they still have to pay for the child on top of all the BC they covered.

publius
2007-Jun-27, 09:20 PM
The question is when are men NOT thinking about sex. Now that I'm 40, there's been a marked decline in the amount of time I think about sex. It's probably down to 97% of the time, now. An amazing 3% spent thinking about other things.

And it takes me an inordinate time to get "warmed up" now, too. About 1 minute compared to instantly when I was 20.

-Richard

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-27, 09:22 PM
And it takes me an inordinate time to get "warmed up" now, too. About 1 minute compared to instantly when I was 20.

-Richard

Please don't tell us how you get warmed up! :hand:

Delvo
2007-Jun-28, 03:49 AM
Jokes passed off as if they were reality, as in two posts above, are where stereotypes come from. No basis in reality necessary.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-28, 03:55 AM
Jokes passed off as if they were reality, as in two posts above, are where stereotypes come from. No basis in reality necessary.

You're not referring to my post, I hope. I was making a little joke but I don't see where I was forming a sterotype. :confused:

Tobin Dax
2007-Jun-28, 04:05 AM
You're not referring to my post, I hope. I was making a little joke but I don't see where I was forming a sterotype. :confused:
Try counting again, Tim.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-28, 04:08 AM
Try counting again, Tim.

You're right. I read "above two posts". Senility strikes again!

Never mind!

publius
2007-Jun-28, 05:15 AM
Quantifying how often someone thinks about something is well nigh impossible, and you'll hear stuff like "men think about sex every [short period of time]", where short period is anything like 1 minute to 7 seconds. That is just bunk, and no way to measure any frequency like that.

However, the Kinsey institute has some studies that put the numbers this way: 54% of men think about sex at least once a day, compared to 19% of women. I would say both figures are probably low, but the gap is about right.

Neuroscience has been looking into differences between the male and female brains, and that includes sex drive differences. As it was put it a book called "The Female Brain", by some author I can't recall, many such stereotypes do have a basis in reality.

Women's brains have an "eight lane superhighway" for processing emotional "data", while men have a "country road". When it comes to sex, men have the eight lane highway and women the country road.

There's another study about sexual dreams. Women and men dream about sex about the same amount. However, those dreams are very different. :) With women, it's a romance novel involving some fantasy figure who is usualy a real person, such as a celebrity, or someone she knows and fantasizes about. With men, it's hard core porn involving generic partners, and interestingly, it generally involves the anonymous partner initiating the encounter -- ie, he's a walking along, and the fanstasy women grabs him and thows him down. IOW, a fantasy of women acting like men. :lol:

Neurochemical differences between men and women during sex and the pre and post warmups are also remarkably different. With men, it's tied to *aggression*. And this is in a general sense, not the sense of violence, ie aggressive vs. passive approaches to doing something. Lower the aggression neurochemisty in a male, and his sex drive declines. In women, it's not there in a positive sense but increase the aggression in a female, and her drive declines, but decrease below normal for her and it doesn't decrease the drive. That is very different behavior, indeed.

Then there's the "bonding chemical", oxytocin. Give someone a shot of oxytocin, and they tend to trust someone else more than normal. It plays a role in the bonding and trusting of a relationship. With women, that's a big part of the whole process. With men, oxytocin levels are generally 10 times less than women.

Except for one brief period. And that's during ejaculation. At that moment, the male oxytocin level will spike up to female levels. Only at that moment with a woman does the male brain get a "bond with her, bond with her" signal. And a moment's thought about that and it makes perfect sense. Nature has a well worked out scheme at play there.

-Richard

Gillianren
2007-Jun-28, 06:32 AM
However, the Kinsey institute has some studies that put the numbers this way: 54% of men think about sex at least once a day, compared to 19% of women. I would say both figures are probably low, but the gap is about right.

I must know a pretty astonishing group of women, then. Every woman I know, pretty much, thinks about sex at least once a day. More frequently than that's pretty normal, too--unless we're single. Most of my friends kind of shut down between relationships, because it's healthier (physically, at least) than being promiscuous. (Can you give me a cite for that, btw? You'd be amazed how hard it is to Google that sort of thing!)

As to how much birth control costs the state vs. children, let's remember that, if you're poor enough to qualify for the free birth control in Washington, you're poor enough to qualify for the state to cover your prenatal care and your child's medical care once it's born. You have to admit, that's more expensive than a year's birth control even if only one woman in a hundred gets pregnant without the state-sponsored program.

Listening to some of your stories, guys, I'm thinking either you meet nothing but the wrong women or you treat the women you meet wrong--or, of course, some combination thereof. I find the behaviour you're describing absolutely repellent. I've never even asked my daughter's father for money, even before I went on welfare and acquired prenatal care. (And prenatal care is, in turn, cheaper than not; babies whose mothers don't receive prenatal care are more likely to have serious health problems.) Graham keeps me from being homeless. but I hardly live in luxury; he's still saved money every month we've been together.

I can tell you just as many horrible stories about men mistreating their wives as you can women mistreating their husbands. I promise. However, I do not mistake it for any kind of statistics.

crosscountry
2007-Jun-28, 09:29 AM
I realize this isn't a large selection of men, and we're not the normal populace anyway.


But, maybe you should listen rather than pretend all of us are wrong or treat someone else wrong. To believe anything 100&#37; regarding relationships is setting yourself up for failure.


I'm thinking either you meet nothing but the wrong women or you treat the women you meet wrong--or, of course, some combination thereof.

Delvo
2007-Jun-28, 10:42 AM
Listening to some of your stories, guys, I'm thinking either you meet nothing but the wrong women or you treat the women you meet wrong--or, of course, some combination thereof.In the case of actually believing that women don't want sex as much as men, it's probably a matter of just falling for the act that most women tend to put on (at least some of the time), pretending not to be interested in sex. (This includes getting themselves stuck with men they don't actually want, which doesn't at all affect how they feel about the men they actually DO want but didn't get... it just means the guy she's settled for and other observers of the relationship won't see that side of her personality applied to that relationship.)

But really, falling for that, in itself, can be blamed on the men, for just not being observant and using common sense. Women do show plenty of signs of sexual desire in general, equal to men's or even more intense than men's. But they're just not in the form or the context that a lot of men expect; like most signs of anything women think or feel, it's hidden in code and doesn't appear when & where it's expected but does when & where it isn't.

That not only sets up men to miss or misunderstand the evidence, but also sets up women, who are used to thinking that way (covering things in a maze of abstraction and subtle one-thing-means-another coding), to perceive any subject that's NOT treated that way, but kept out in the open and very simple and straightforward ("Yes, I want this and I'm saying so"), as an obsession just because it's too overt.

Maksutov
2007-Jun-28, 11:27 AM
A movie was released in 1959 called The Man Who Understood Women (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053043/).

It was, of course, a comedy.

Click Ticker
2007-Jun-28, 12:36 PM
As to how much birth control costs the state vs. children, let's remember that, if you're poor enough to qualify for the free birth control in Washington, you're poor enough to qualify for the state to cover your prenatal care and your child's medical care once it's born. You have to admit, that's more expensive than a year's birth control even if only one woman in a hundred gets pregnant without the state-sponsored program.

Again, if it made fiscal sense for the insurance company - they would do it. They don't choose not to cover certain things just for spite. "We hate women! Let's not cover birth control even though it will cost us money! (insert evil laugh)" Government is about votes first, fiscal responsibility a distant - oh, I don't know - are they even about that? Voters will say, "Think of the CHILDREN!!!!" and policy changes. Voters will say, "What about the poor women!!!!" and policy changes. In addition - government doesn't just have to consider the ongoing medical care of the additional kids. Government also has to consider the cost of food, shelter, and education for the additional kids. Insurance companies don't have to worry about those expenses. So while it may be beneficial to the government to encourage the use of birth control, it likely isn't the case for an insurance company.


Listening to some of your stories, guys, I'm thinking either you meet nothing but the wrong women or you treat the women you meet wrong--or, of course, some combination thereof.

See? That's what we've been saying. It's always our fault. Either we pick the wrong women, or we don't know how to treat our women.

One stereotype I've always heard that is kind of funny is that a guy will choose to marry a woman because he likes the way she is. A girl will choose to marry a guy because she thinks she can change him. Sure - Pistons basketball is just a cute little thing I enjoy when we're dating. No big deal - I even like watching games with him. Eight years of marraige later and now I watch too much? It's not my fault they stunk when we were dating and now they've been to five straight Eastern Conference Finals and won one NBA Championship.

Delvo
2007-Jun-28, 01:46 PM
See? That's what we've been saying. It's always our fault. Either we pick the wrong women, or we don't know how to treat our women.Well, another way to interpret the idea that we meet only the wrong kind is that it's because that's all there is... :D (Somehow I suspect that isn't what she meant, but it is a possible interpretation, and it's one I had an urge to post at first before thinking it could look too much like just antagonism.)

Gillianren
2007-Jun-28, 07:46 PM
You can believe what you want to about birth control, Spock, but we're looking at different perspectives. You're talking about private insurance (which I believe should cover it simply as a basic need), which may or may not have to cover medical care for the child depending on whether the care is automatically extended to minor children or not. I'm talking about the state, which will have to cover those children. Like it or not, believe it or not, it saves the state millions to pay for birth control. Viagra saves no one anything--except a little embarassment for men.

I have been listening to what you guys have said, believe me. And yes, I've considered the possibility that you're right. However, you're not, not universally. If you're associating with the wrong women, that's probably just bad luck. However, you might consider that the tirades against the evils of women (and you'll note that I'm not responding with tirades against the evils of men) don't exactly endear you to women who don't fit the descriptions you've brought up.

Again, like it or not, it is at least in part your fault if your partner isn't having a good time, just as it would be at least in part her fault if you weren't. Women have fiddly mechanisms, and it can hurt if you're doing it wrong, which does rather kill the mood. (Unless that's what you're going for!)

Not all women are manipulative and money-grubbing. I'll admit I can be manipulative, but not just of Graham. My mental illness makes me try to manipulate people to provide the emotional support I need. Yes. It's unpleasant but true, and I'm not denying it. But again, I find a lot of the behaviour you're describing just as repellent as you do, and I really do believe a majority of women would be on my side--and yours.

Finally, let me explain why I'm still arguing the point. I really think equality is only achieved when there is understanding. Assuming everything's as uneven as you say, maybe the best way to handle it is not to assume that it's all because all women want it that way. We don't. Personally, in divorce, I want first what's best for any children in it, which is not always being with the mother, and second, a truly equitable settlement. If a woman gave up an education to pay for the man's--or vice versa--let the one who was educated pay for the other's now. Ideally, the children should have a parent who doesn't have to work, but at very least, they should be properly clothed and fed. What is equitable for one situation isn't for another; that's why there is such thing as mediation and court.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-28, 07:47 PM
Let's not bicker about who killed . . . er . . . who got who pregnant.

Larry Jacks
2007-Jun-28, 08:54 PM
However, you might consider that the tirades against the evils of women (and you'll note that I'm not responding with tirades against the evils of men) don't exactly endear you to women who don't fit the descriptions you've brought up.

It would be refreshing if more women (and I'm by no means complaining about you) realized that their rants against men didn't exactly endear themselves to the men that don't fit the descriptions, either. Misandry (http://www.answers.com/topic/misandry) is at least as pervasive as misogyny but women get a free pass for it.

As but one example, many colleges require all incoming students to take mandatory date rape classes where statements like "All men are potential rapists" are common. If a professor said something equally extreme about all women being potential prostitutes, he'd be drummed off of campus. Attacks on men by radicals are nothing new and are not at all rare (http://www.talewins.com/essays/men.htm).

Click Ticker
2007-Jun-28, 09:01 PM
You can believe what you want to about birth control, Spock, but we're looking at different perspectives. You're talking about private insurance (which I believe should cover it simply as a basic need), which may or may not have to cover medical care for the child depending on whether the care is automatically extended to minor children or not. I'm talking about the state, which will have to cover those children. Like it or not, believe it or not, it saves the state millions to pay for birth control.

I've addressed this. That's why I don't get why you're still debating it. Much earlier in the thread the topic of why would an insurance company cover Viagra and not BC. I suggested why. Didn't say I agreed with it, just that their reasoning makes fiscal sense for them. Likewise I addressed that additional children cost the government much more than they would an insurance company. The whole food, shelter, education expenses that I mentioned.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-28, 09:03 PM
Paracelsus,

See what you re-started. The Battle of the Sexes.

For this, you must gather . . . another . . . SHRUBBERY! :)

Gillianren
2007-Jun-28, 09:12 PM
It would be refreshing if more women (and I'm by no means complaining about you) realized that their rants against men didn't exactly endear themselves to the men that don't fit the descriptions, either. Misandry (http://www.answers.com/topic/misandry) is at least as pervasive as misogyny but women get a free pass for it.

And I absolutely agree that women need to stop it, too. However, I think misogyny's more built into the system. Women's health concerns tend to get ignored by the medical establishment. Women still tend to earn less than men in the same job. There's still an attitude (decreasing visibly, I think) that a woman in control of the nuclear football would be more susceptible to hormones than reason.


As but one example, many colleges require all incoming students to take mandatory date rape classes where statements like "All men are potential rapists" are common. If a professor said something equally extreme about all women being potential prostitutes, he'd be drummed off of campus. Attacks on men by radicals are nothing new and are not at all rare (http://www.talewins.com/essays/men.htm).

Since most rapes are by someone women know, all men are potential rapists. A woman does need to be careful no matter what she does. The issue is, you're seeing the context differently than it's intended. The way it's intended is not that any man may become a rapist at any time. It's that a woman cannot tell by looking which man is a rapist and which isn't, and she should be careful rather than get raped. An astonishing percentage of women have been, though of course the figures are notoriously unreliable, given that no one knows what percentage of rapes are reported. I've known women who have been raped, and it leaves deep psychological scarring. Teaching a woman to be aware of her surroundings is important, and in my opinion, teaching women not to judge by appearances is part of that.

There's no way to phrase it so that the difference is clear. I have tried. There is no simple way of saying it, no way to make clear that the intent is not to demonize men but to make women be wary. I also don't think that rapist and prostitute are fair parallels, come to that. I'm in favour of licensing and regulating the latter, but not the former.