Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Parenting
ParentingMothersSingle ParentsStep ParentsAdoptionTwinsSpankingChildren's Health
Pregnancy
PregnancyBreastfeeding
Marriage
MarriageDivorce
FamilyKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / July 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Hypnotise your Husbands

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jenny - 16 Jul 2009 17:31 GMT
Is that actually possible?

It is amazingly. It works on any man but has to be done by a woman.
The reason is phenomenal. Man has always had a weakness for women.
Physically and mentally,he has an unseen weakness. Any woman can
hypnotise any men using the ancient artform of Hypnotism.

Do we ladies have the last say? We look after the kids. We cook his
dinner. We keep the house in order. At the end of the day,we deserve a
little tenderness. How many times has he taken us for granted? We do
the shitload and there he is glued to the screen watching his
football.

I needed to change things alittle when it came to my husband and now
his twirled round my little fingers.

THINGS are about to change Ladies!!!

Lets control our men through the power of Hypnotism. Lets turn the
tables around. Get him to cook for you. Get him to wash those dishes.
Get him to give you that massage while you tune in to your favourite
episode of Desperate Housewives.

Ive done it and you can too.Enough is enough. Its time to put him
under Hypnosis and I'll tell you just how. It sure as hell works for
me and it will for you too.

Jenny
Stephanie - 16 Jul 2009 17:36 GMT
> Is that actually possible?
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> the shitload and there he is glued to the screen watching his
> football.

Why not try being nice to him? Stop nagging. Write sexy love notes in his
lunch bag. Cook and clean if you want to and if it is your JOB. But don't do
it for him. Because he does not care.

> I needed to change things alittle when it came to my husband and now
> his twirled round my little fingers.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Jenny
Jenny - 16 Jul 2009 18:35 GMT
> > Is that actually possible?
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Marriage is a whole new ball game altogether. Lots of us women out
there have seen a huge change in our husbands from the time we got
married to the present day. Not all of us are priviledged to have
husbands who have not changed since marriage. From those "bed of
roses" that once used to be to the thorns that many of us can feel.

Communication? Is that enough? Unfortunately,its not. The busy
schedules that a few of our husbands keep cuts down communication. In
this present era,there is a need for something else. Something more
powerful than just communication. Its Hypnotism. Its a method that has
worked for me and it will undoubtedly work for many other women in my
situation. For the sole purpose,IT WILL SAVE THE MARRIAGE. It will
ignite the fire that once was there. It will create the hottest and
most passionate love making that history has ever known. Save the
marriage,DIVORCE is not an option. If all else has failed then theres
one thing left that im super sure would work. Its HYPNOTISM.
Stephanie - 16 Jul 2009 18:44 GMT
>>> Is that actually possible?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> there have seen a huge change in our husbands from the time we got
> married to the present day.

Yah. I'll bet he has seen some changes in you too. Suddenly you are too
tired. Getting fat. Nag about the car, the house, the money.

> Not all of us are priviledged to have
> husbands who have not changed since marriage. From those "bed of
> roses" that once used to be to the thorns that many of us can feel.

Who wants a husband who has not changed? Do we want to remain stagnant? We
just have to watch what ways we have grown, or worse, shrunk.

> Communication? Is that enough? Unfortunately,its not. The busy
> schedules that a few of our husbands keep cuts down communication. In
> this present era,there is a need for something else. Something more
> powerful than just communication. Its Hypnotism. Its a method that has
> worked for me and it will undoubtedly work for many other women in my
> situation. For the sole purpose,IT WILL SAVE THE MARRIAGE.

I know you won't understand a word I am saying, or read it, since you are a
troll. Bit for the sake of any lurkers who may be hearing you...

Why not just buy a blow up doll with sweet recordings? And a maid? Much
easier.

> It will
> ignite the fire that once was there. It will create the hottest and
> most passionate love making that history has ever known.

So could a pereson just by being a normal, nice, kind and sexy human being.
Women don't need men to alight things. They can things started too.

> Save the
> marriage,DIVORCE is not an option. If all else has failed then theres
> one thing left that im super sure would work. Its HYPNOTISM.
Bob Muncie - 16 Jul 2009 20:25 GMT
>>> Is that actually possible?
>>> It is amazingly. It works on any man but has to be done by a woman.
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> marriage,DIVORCE is not an option. If all else has failed then theres
> one thing left that im super sure would work. Its HYPNOTISM.

Yah, but does it work on the womens? I have one I want to Hypnotize.

That's what I want...
dejablues - 17 Jul 2009 06:10 GMT
> Marriage is a whole new ball game altogether. Lots of us women out
> there have seen a huge change in our husbands from the time we got
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> worked for me and it will undoubtedly work for many other women in my
> situation. For the sole purpose,IT WILL SAVE THE MARRIAGE.

It's dishonest and coercive.  It won't work.
You forgot to spam your website, btw.
Bob Muncie - 17 Jul 2009 06:52 GMT
>> Marriage is a whole new ball game altogether. Lots of us women out
>> there have seen a huge change in our husbands from the time we got
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> It's dishonest and coercive.  It won't work.
> You forgot to spam your website, btw.

Deja - You jumped the gun. I wanted "Jenny" to tell me how to hypnotize
my womens before he/she got scart off.

Now I might never know how now <sigh>.

Bob
dejablues - 17 Jul 2009 07:13 GMT
>>> Marriage is a whole new ball game altogether. Lots of us women out
>>> there have seen a huge change in our husbands from the time we got
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Bob

Beer is cheap enough, and probably more reliable than online hypnosis!
Vickie - 17 Jul 2009 07:22 GMT
>>>> Marriage is a whole new ball game altogether. Lots of us women out
>>>> there have seen a huge change in our husbands from the time we got
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Beer is cheap enough, and probably more reliable than online hypnosis!

Online hypnosis?
Is that something like:
"Look into my 'I's..."

I I

Vickie
Tai - 17 Jul 2009 13:28 GMT
> Online hypnosis?
> Is that something like:
> "Look into my 'I's..."

Thanks for the "Little Britain" moment, Vickie!
Vickie - 17 Jul 2009 16:56 GMT
>> Online hypnosis?
>> Is that something like:
>> "Look into my 'I's..."
>
> Thanks for the "Little Britain" moment, Vickie!

:-)

V
phelbooth - 17 Jul 2009 22:38 GMT
> >>>> Marriage is a whole new ball game altogether. Lots of us women out
> >>>> there have seen a huge change in our husbands from the time we got
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Vickie

In my novel class, we've been considering how "you" is used. Of course
it's used in conversation, depicting the character to whom the
speaking character speaks. But then there may be a narrator, who is
speaking to a "you"; and this "you" may or may not be like the "you"
the author is speaking to (who may or may not be explicit)--

The same goes with "I", I believe, I mean really: when you are looking
in the mirror and cracking yourself up over the copycatting in-laws,
Vickie, is the you in the mirror the same as the you outside the
mirror? Exactly? And even the "you" in- and outside the mirror:
doesn't she look different and seem different at different times?

I think that stuff is cool.
Fill
YooperBoyka - 18 Jul 2009 04:01 GMT
> Is that something like:
> "Look into my 'I's..."
>
> I I

Now *that's* hilarious!
:^)
Bob Muncie - 17 Jul 2009 07:34 GMT
>>>> Marriage is a whole new ball game altogether. Lots of us women out
>>>> there have seen a huge change in our husbands from the time we got
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Beer is cheap enough, and probably more reliable than online hypnosis!

True - But the womens you get from OD of beer, are the ones you truly
deserve ;-)

Don't ask how I know that. Those were truly the stupid days of my youth
where I could do no wrong.

You and Vickie however are likely the fine wines I can only strive for,
but rarely afford.

Bob
Doug Laidlaw - 22 Jul 2009 14:34 GMT
>> Marriage is a whole new ball game altogether. Lots of us women out
>> there have seen a huge change in our husbands from the time we got
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> It's dishonest and coercive.  It won't work.
> You forgot to spam your website, btw.

And it is all a non sequitur. (Stephanie, if you think that I am biased, I
can only say that Australian women don't write drivel like the above.  
They are too intelligent.  They still put human and family values (including
parenting) before money.  Give me one of our girls any day!)

The answer is to cut down the busy schedules and leave time for the
communication.  Which is more important, a bigger house (or a second car or
the latest TV) or your marriage?  My wife and I saved up for what we wanted.  
We didn't put everything on a dollar down and a dollar a week and then have
to wreck our marriage to pay for it all.  A counsellor told us to devote
half an hour each evening to togetherness and communication.  And unlike the
advertised cure, it is free!!  If you haven't got time for that, you haven't
got time to go to appointments.

And if you want your husband to stay unchanged, what about yourself?  Can't
he ditch you for the same reasons?  Or will he keep growing while you refuse
to, and leave you far behind?  Change is the pulse of life itself.

Doug L.
Signature

Experience is not what happens to you; it's what you do with what happens to
you.
  - Elbert Hubbard

Bill in Co - 23 Jul 2009 03:59 GMT
>>> Marriage is a whole new ball game altogether. Lots of us women out
>>> there have seen a huge change in our husbands from the time we got
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> And it is all a non sequitur. (Stephanie, if you think that I am biased, I
> can only say that Australian women don't write drivel like the above.

Well, that may be a bit of over generalizing.  :-)    But then again, maybe
not.   It is likely true you don't have such a wide variance as we do up
here.   But then again, look at our respective populations.

Well ok, that's not all of it.   Look at our respective "cultures", too.
Up here, individualism and money and material things are King.   (Sigh.....)

> They are too intelligent.  They still put human and family values
> (including
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> or
> the latest TV) or your marriage?

Here in the US???   And in this current era?   Is that a trick question, or
what?   Are you playing with us, Doug?    LOL!

> My wife and I saved up for what we wanted.
> We didn't put everything on a dollar down and a dollar a week and then
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Doug L.
> --
Maybe I need a new pulse then.
Stephanie - 23 Jul 2009 12:55 GMT
>>> Marriage is a whole new ball game altogether. Lots of us women out
>>> there have seen a huge change in our husbands from the time we got
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> (including parenting) before money.  Give me one of our girls any
> day!)

Australian women are more intelligent than USian women. And universally put
family values before money. And you want me to beleive you are NOT biased?

> The answer is to cut down the busy schedules and leave time for the
> communication.  Which is more important, a bigger house (or a second
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Doug L.
Bill in Co - 23 Jul 2009 22:10 GMT
>>>> Marriage is a whole new ball game altogether. Lots of us women out
>>>> there have seen a huge change in our husbands from the time we got
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> put
> family values before money. And you want me to beleive you are NOT biased?

Is there anybody in here who is completely unbiased?    If so, please raise
your hands!    (looking around, sees no hands go up.   LOL)

>> The answer is to cut down the busy schedules and leave time for the
>> communication.  Which is more important, a bigger house (or a second
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>>
>> Doug L.
Doug Laidlaw - 20 Jul 2009 09:20 GMT
> But don't do
> it for him. Because he does not care.

Perhaps he doesn't.  I do.  My wife's attitude is: don't do it for him,
because he (and everybody else in the world) should be doing it for YOU.
So I sacrificed my health - even my life - on the altar of marriage.

Heard of "the terrible twos?"  My wife has repeatedly told me that if
there is something she can't handle, she only has to make a fuss and
somebody will come running.  Like sitting down in the middle of the
road and having a tantrum.  A book called this seeing the world through
"two year old eyes."

The danger is, that like anybody in that position, about any topic, I am
inclined to go from "she" to "everybody" or "all women."  There are plenty
of nicer, more caring women around.  But are they any different once they
have roped you in?  Better to be distant and find life enjoyable, than to
have it ruined by marriage.

Doug L.
Signature

Be wisely worldly, be not worldly wise.
  - Francis Quarles.

Bob Muncie - 20 Jul 2009 12:19 GMT
>> But don't do
>> it for him. Because he does not care.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Doug L.

Doug -

You sound like the evil/sad skit from a Saturday Night Live (SNL) show,
that is from an alternative universe.

Bob
Stephanie - 20 Jul 2009 13:36 GMT
>> But don't do
>> it for him. Because he does not care.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> for YOU. So I sacrificed my health - even my life - on the altar of
> marriage.

That is not what I meant. Don't clean the house because it wil make your
husband kissy face. Clean the house because that is what houses need. And as
a capable, mature human being, that is what you do.

So many people see marriage as tit-for-tat. (Including you, still, I think.)

I would love to hear what you are doing to change the dymabic with your
wife. Seems like mostly you just complain about it.

> Heard of "the terrible twos?"  My wife has repeatedly told me that if
> there is something she can't handle, she only has to make a fuss and
> somebody will come running.  Like sitting down in the middle of the
> road and having a tantrum.  A book called this seeing the world
> through "two year old eyes."

And you want to be with this woman. I wonder why that is. You know that this
has nothing to do with "marriage" at all but has to do with the fact that
you married an immature woman who intends to remain immature?

> The danger is, that like anybody in that position, about any topic, I
> am inclined to go from "she" to "everybody" or "all women."

I know. It makes me insane.

> There
> are plenty of nicer, more caring women around.  But are they any
> different once they have roped you in?  Better to be distant and find
> life enjoyable, than to have it ruined by marriage.
>
> Doug L.

Ask my husband if they are different once they rope you in. You are never
going to get anywhere. You are lost. Give up.
Doug Laidlaw - 20 Jul 2009 23:37 GMT
>>> But don't do
>>> it for him. Because he does not care.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> husband kissy face. Clean the house because that is what houses need. And
> as a capable, mature human being, that is what you do.

Sorry, I responded to the sentence, not its context.

> So many people see marriage as tit-for-tat. (Including you, still, I
> think.)
>
> I would love to hear what you are doing to change the dymabic with your
> wife. Seems like mostly you just complain about it.

I am planning another exit.  For about the hundredth time.  Only this time,
I think that I am strong enough to survive it. As my doctor keeps telling me,
I should "get out and smell the roses." Not, as R. L. Stevenson put it:

"Times are changed with him who marries; there are no more by-path meadows,
where you may innocently linger, but the road lies long and straight and
dusty to the grave."

And no, I don't see marriage as tit-for-tat.  I see marriage as two people
wanting the best for each other, not two people wanting the best for only
one of them.  There is no need to keep any score.

But I don't blame my wife.  I originally intended never to marry.  What
has eventuated is entirely my own doing.  The couple is the human unit,
as we acknowledge when we talk about our "better half," but there are
some men (and women) whom it doesn't suit.  I am one.  They say that
a common "self-medication" for depression is a change of partner.  The
most effective one is having no partner at all, otherwise nothing changes.

Doug L.
Signature

Experience is not what happens to you; it's what you do with what happens to
you.
  - Elbert Hubbard

wang - 21 Jul 2009 02:15 GMT
> >>> But don't do
> >>> it for him. Because he does not care.
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

hi,friend.
Web  :   www.hongmaohk.net
we have new product shoes T-shirt jean jacket handbag sunglass shawl
shorts
this price

Nike shoes, puma shoes, lacoste shoes, 1 pairs shoes 50 USD,2 pairs
shoes 90 USD,3 pairs shoes 120 USD,5 pairs shoes 170 USD, include send

ARMANI LACOSTE POLO G-STAR D&G T-SHIRT
long sleeve t-shirt 10 piece 200 USD
short sleeve t-shirt 10 piece 150 USD

A&F AFFLICTION ARTFUL DODGER ED HARDY T-SHIRT
long sleeve t-shirt 10 piece 230 USD
short sleeve t-shirt 10 piece 180 USD

JACKET 1 piece 60 USD, 2 piece 110 USD, 3 piece 150 USD, 5 piece 240
USD,10 piece 460 USD,20 piece 860 USD

Handbag 1 piece 60 USD 2 piece 110 USD 3 piece 150 USD,5 piece 200 USD

A&F JEAN 1 piece 55 USD,2 piece 100 USD,3 piece 140 USD,5 piece 200
USD,10 piece 380 USD.

ARMANI BAPE GSTAR D&G ED HARDY EVISU LEVI,S VERSACE JACK&JONES GUCCI
JEAN
1 piece 50 USD,2 piece 90 USD,3 piece 120 USD,5 piece 190 USD,10 piece
360 USD.

Sunglass 10 piece 130 USD

ED sunglass 10 piece 160 USD

SHAWL 1 piece 38 USD,2 piece 70 USD,3 piece 90 USD,5 piece 130 USD,10
piece 220 USD.

SHORTS 1 piece 38 USD,2 piece 70 USD,3 piece 90 USD,5 piece 130 USD,10
piece 220 USD.

thanks!
Doug Laidlaw - 21 Jul 2009 04:42 GMT
> And no, I don't see marriage as tit-for-tat.  I see marriage as two people
> wanting the best for each other, not two people wanting the best for only
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Doug L.

IMO, marriage licences, like driver licences, should be renewable every 10
years.  The 60-70 year marriages that I see in the death notices can
continue, but saving the rest from the constant message of "can't --
impossible -- can't"  would increase productivity 100%.  Once all the
children have left home, there is absolutely no point in continuing a
destructive relationship, and these days, there is no financial need.

Doug L.
Signature

All reformers are bachelors.(George Moore.) -- and for the same reason.
She who says a thing can't be done is likely to be talking to nothing
while he is out doing it.

Doug Anderson - 21 Jul 2009 05:17 GMT
> > And no, I don't see marriage as tit-for-tat.  I see marriage as two people
> > wanting the best for each other, not two people wanting the best for only
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> IMO, marriage licences, like driver licences, should be renewable every 10
> years.

Why woudl that be better than the current situation in which a
marriage can be ended at any time by either partner?

> The 60-70 year marriages that I see in the death notices can
> continue, but saving the rest from the constant message of "can't --
> impossible -- can't"  would increase productivity 100%.  Once all the
> children have left home, there is absolutely no point in continuing a
> destructive relationship, and these days, there is no financial
> need.

So why do you continue a destructive relationship?  Why does anyone?

Not because of the law, I think.

(snip misogynistic signature)
Doug Laidlaw - 21 Jul 2009 08:45 GMT
>> > And no, I don't see marriage as tit-for-tat.  I see marriage as two
>> > people wanting the best for each other, not two people wanting the best
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Why woudl that be better than the current situation in which a
> marriage can be ended at any time by either partner?

"The doors of the courts are open to anybody.  And so are the doors of the
Ritz Hotel."  There is enough expense in sorting out a failed marriage,
without bringing lawyers into it.  Lawyers today are singularly ill-
equipped for any form of dispute resolution, and have been excluded from
one tribunal after another.  The "family lawyer" like the family doctor,
is an extinct species.  Lawyers have become a necessary evil.

>> The 60-70 year marriages that I see in the death notices can
>> continue, but saving the rest from the constant message of "can't --
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> (snip misogynistic signature)
Because the children needed us both, then I was too ill to be able to
survive alone.  Now, I think I can.  I have wasted 3/4 of my lifespan.
I do not intend to waste the rest.

Signature

Be wisely worldly, be not worldly wise.
  - Francis Quarles.

Stephanie - 21 Jul 2009 12:56 GMT
>>>> And no, I don't see marriage as tit-for-tat.  I see marriage as two
>>>> people wanting the best for each other, not two people wanting the
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> like the family doctor, is an extinct species.  Lawyers have become a
> necessary evil.

It is easier to hate and blame everyone else; women, lawyers than it is to
do anything yourself. Isn't it?

>>> The 60-70 year marriages that I see in the death notices can
>>> continue, but saving the rest from the constant message of "can't --
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> survive alone.  Now, I think I can.  I have wasted 3/4 of my lifespan.
> I do not intend to waste the rest.

Good. get 'er done.
Doug Laidlaw - 21 Jul 2009 14:11 GMT
> It is easier to hate and blame everyone else; women, lawyers than it is to
> do anything yourself. Isn't it?

Do you approve of lawyers taking half the matrimonial property?  Do you find
it wrong that about 20 years ago, Legal Aid limited lawyers' fees to $10 000
a side?  Do you think it good that lawyers are thinking up so much
litigation, and so many ways of inflating damages, that public risk
insurance is priced beyond the reach of most ordinary people?  That the one
lawyer here in Victoria who stood up against the excessive greed was
silenced by the Law Institute?  I recall one issue of the magazine in
particular.  Opposite one of his letters was a notice that lawyers could go
to a mortician's conference and claim it off their tax.  Exactly what he was
campaigning against.  Nowadays, everybody has to produce a detailed diary
showing not only that they attended the sessions, but how it helped their
business.

I was a lawyer for 30 years.  Our system isn't as rotten as the U.S. one,
but it is getting that way. Australia is still young enough to remember the
pioneer days, when survival depended on mutual support.  It still has many
small rural communities where relying on each other is still vital.  Where
the whole community joins the local fire brigade, instead of waiting for it
to be sent from the nearest big city.  The only bank not from a capital city
started in my Central Victorian city, and has its head office here.  It runs
appeals for most charitable causes.  In the communities that the other banks
have selfishly abandoned because they can't make a buck, it has set up
community banks with local support.  Its business is booming.

I am only saying that if couples want to separate, the litigation scenario
isn't for them.  I have said repeatedly that I very much approve of the
Australian system, where the couple don't have to tear strips off each other
and drag each other's characters through the dirt to get a divorce, only to
be told that they have to forget about all that and work together for the
children's welfare.  They only have to say: The marriage didn't work out. No
loss of dignity.  No accusations.  Just acceptance of a fact by two mature
people. There is a support system to deal with the inevitable feelings of
failure.  It was the women in particular who hated the old system.  If you
are of the opposite camp, Stephanie, that surprises me.  Those are the women
that soc.men hate, and rightly so.

I am not blaming women - I made that plain.  I am not blaming anybody.  I am
merely saying that my marriage is not meeting my needs and never has.  In
Australia, that is all that I need to say. Today I looked at the list of
emotional needs on Marriagebuilders.  I can't see one of those that I find
adequately fulfilled, except perhaps companionship.  We are a good team.  
That was how we started out, working as a team for the young people's group
where we met.  Then we worked as a team setting up a home and bringing up
the children.  But a couple we never were.  We have slept in different rooms
for over 10 years. She calls it, "living like royalty."

Doug L.
Signature

You can't buy love, but it sure can screw up an economy.
 -- Arnold H. Glasgow.

phelbooth - 22 Jul 2009 02:31 GMT
> > It is easier to hate and blame everyone else; women, lawyers than it is to
> > do anything yourself. Isn't it?
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> You can't buy love, but it sure can screw up an economy.
>   -- Arnold H. Glasgow.

I'm not in the money bracket you are, obviously, Doug, but I do want
to say this.

I hired a lawyer two days after STBX moved out because I didn't want
to have to try to work things out with STBX at any level, for I had
learned during the marriage that my best efforts to compromise were
never matched with his own transparency, honesty, and integrity. I had
no reason to believe things would go better during the divorce.

And while I am paying a good chunk of change, there are a couple of
plus-es. First, I really don't have to fret about stuff (how much
fretting have you heard from me, and wouldn't you be the first to
hear--you being not just you, Doug)? I don't know legal codes, and I
don't want to learn them, and I suck at anything that involves
numbers. So, I hired one who I hope is a damn good lawyer, and am
letting her do her job. Second, the amount I'm paying her is only a
fraction of the amount I'd spend on STBX if he were still beloved
spouse.

Trusting in legal representation of my choosing has allowed me to keep
that "zen" moment I found at the cabin with me to now, and we really
are counting down days 'til the final hearing. Que sera,
sera...regardless of the final outcome, the only thing I really had to
lose was my husband, and how can you lose something that you never
really had? So for me, the only real loss is that of an idea of "us"
created by me, one that has no parallel in reality and never did.

Fill
Doug Anderson - 21 Jul 2009 15:18 GMT
> >> > And no, I don't see marriage as tit-for-tat.  I see marriage as two
> >> > people wanting the best for each other, not two people wanting the best
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> one tribunal after another.  The "family lawyer" like the family doctor,
> is an extinct species.  Lawyers have become a necessary evil.

In the US it is possible to divorce without a lawyer.  All that is
required is for the partners to agree about what to do.

But the larger point is:  how does your 10 year renewal period help?
Why would deciding not to renew be any simpler in terms of dividing up
property than the current situation?

> >> The 60-70 year marriages that I see in the death notices can
> >> continue, but saving the rest from the constant message of "can't --
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> survive alone.  Now, I think I can.  I have wasted 3/4 of my lifespan.
> I do not intend to waste the rest.

Yes, given your attitude toward your wife in particular, and toward
women in general, not being married would seem like the better choice
for you.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie - 21 Jul 2009 18:29 GMT
"Doug Laidlaw <blackhole@afraid.org>" wrote:
> IMO, marriage licences, like driver licences, should be renewable
> every 10 years.

"Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com>" asked:
> Why woudl that be better than the current situation in which a
> marriage can be ended at any time by either partner?

Well, it would change the default expectation a little bit.  It's
been shown that if you sign up employees with a form that asks about
their retirement plan, and the default is "no plan", then most of them
don't sign up for one.  But if you change the form so the default is
"401K with S&P500 index fund", that's what most people do.

You don't take away anybody's choices here: "no plan" is still an
option, and "401K with S&P500 index fund" was an option before.  Those
who really want to choose "no plan" can still do so.  But by using the
default to give a nudge (which ended up being the title of a book about
this), you change what choices they make.

There's been lots of research in how people make choices, and there's a
lot of irrationality involved.  Here's a talk by Dan Ariely about this:

  http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_d
ecisions.html


He shows examples where you can add a choice to change how people make
sense of the choices available (similar to optical illusions), and thus
influence their decisions.

So, Mr Laidlaw may have in mind that if, every 10 years, you had to go
down to the courthouse and re-file the form to stay married, and both
people had to sign it or the marriage would be dissolved by default,
that it would alter the emotional pressure on people such as himself.
(And, perhaps, his wife.)

The traditional view seems to hinge on the idea that a commitment will
keep people together when times get tough, and over the long run that's
for the best.  But Mr Laidlaw's position appears to be that whatever the
statistical payoff, in his case it's kept him in a bad situation long
past when he should have left.  I'm reminded of this exchange from
_The Lord of the Rings_:

  Gimli: "Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart."
 Elrond: "Or break it."

Without some statistically-valid information on how often which choice
works out better, I'd be hesitant to change our current system.  Just
because it's old doesn't mean it's right -- but it also doesn't mean
it's wrong.

Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"I'm not a real movie star; I've still got the same wife I started out
with twenty-eight years ago." -- Will Rogers
Doug Anderson - 21 Jul 2009 19:12 GMT
> "Doug Laidlaw <blackhole@afraid.org>" wrote:
> > IMO, marriage licences, like driver licences, should be renewable
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> don't sign up for one.  But if you change the form so the default is
> "401K with S&P500 index fund", that's what most people do.

Yes.  Have you been reading "Nudge?"

(snip)

> So, Mr Laidlaw may have in mind that if, every 10 years, you had to go
> down to the courthouse and re-file the form to stay married, and both
> people had to sign it or the marriage would be dissolved by default,
> that it would alter the emotional pressure on people such as himself.
> (And, perhaps, his wife.)

Perhaps.  Though I don't see how it simplifies any of the property
issues.
Sarah Lister - 21 Jul 2009 19:29 GMT
On Jul 21, 2:12 pm, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > "Doug Laidlaw <blackh...@afraid.org>" wrote:
> > > IMO, marriage licences, like driver licences, should be renewable
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Perhaps.  Though I don't see how it simplifies any of the property
> issues.

Besides, if Doug L.'s reasons for staying were a) the children needed
them both and b) he was too ill to survive alone, I'm not sure how
changing the defaults would help.  The children would still have
needed them both, and then he still would have been too ill to survive
alone.

Sarah
Stephanie - 21 Jul 2009 22:36 GMT
>>> (snip misogynistic signature)
>> Because the children needed us both, then I was too ill to be able to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> women in general, not being married would seem like the better choice
> for you.

Dating is not a great idea either.
Doug Laidlaw - 21 Jul 2009 23:56 GMT
(I clicked the wrong button and sent this as an e-mail.  It should bounce -
if it ever went.)

> In the US it is possible to divorce without a lawyer.  All that is
> required is for the partners to agree about what to do.
>
> But the larger point is:  how does your 10 year renewal period help?
> Why would deciding not to renew be any simpler in terms of dividing up
> property than the current situation?

A divorce without a lawyer is possible here.  They can write to the Family
Court for a set of forms.  Both can have the same lawyer, although that
raises large ethical difficulties for the lawyer.  Agreement about the
property is common.  So are bitter disputes over property and children.

>Yes, given your attitude toward your wife in particular, and toward
>women in general, not being married would seem like the better choice
>for you.

I have no objection to women in general.  There are women that I admire.  
There are women that I find delightful.  I believe that the world would be
the poorer without them  - and not from any American, ornamental point of
view.  I don't want strippers, or buxom girls jumping out of birthday cakes.  
That is demeaning to them.  It has never been part of the egalitarian
Australian culture.  Men and women work side by side in many jobs with no
problems.  A fellow solicitor in a satellite of Melbourne was the widow of a
former Chief Justice and entitled to be called "Lady."  Their youngest
daughter worked for us and was waiting to be the "Miss Mann."  Until all
the older girls were married, she had to be "Miss Trish Mann."  With all
that protocol, I wondered how to address the mother.  She rang me first and
introduced herself simply as "Yvonne Mann."  That is how it is in Australia.

Women have been valued here since the pioneering days.  I admit that
allowing women into the workforce has created problems, with its effect on
family life and doubling the available worker pool for the same jobs, but I
am not in favour of going back to the 19th Century.  We don't solve any
problem simply by taking it away.  (Incidentally, I don't know about your
religion, but the biggest challenge to the Christian Church has been to get
out of its perception as a 19th Century institution.  To avoid seeing a
particular social environment as the only "Christian" one.  The young people
seem to be able to do this.)

I get on well with women in general - I relate well to women, and I can
often see and respect that women are coming from a different position.  If a
woman says something that a man may find strange, I don't go on like the
soc.men brigade, who want to rearrange Creation to their tastes.  I often
see it as quite the natural thing for a woman to say, and worth hearing.  It
doesn't antagonize me in the least.  I am not like the men who want women to
think like men, and love like animals.  I believe that the present emphasis
on sex in quantity is unbalanced.  Perhaps sex becomes a visible measure of
the unmeasurable.  I very much believe that men and women complement each
other.  Men are inclined to be too rational, and women are inclined to be
subjective, emotional.  A pair can keep each other aware of the whole
picture.  As I wrote earlier in this thread, and many times before, the
couple is the natural human unit.  Under our former fault divorce law,
adultery was a ground for divorce, and adultery by the petitioner was a
ground for refusing it.  IMO, that is unrealistic.  Men and women need each
other, and if they move out of one relationship, they will look for another.
Most couples don't separate until at least one partner has found somebody to
go to.  I admire the lengthy marriages as much as anybody.

I am coming out of a depressed phase and likely not to do anything - again.

But whatever I decide to do, it will follow those values. If they are
distorted or perverted, I can't see where. My wife is entitled to her
values as well, even if they are the opposite of mine.  But as a couple,
we can't be travelling in opposite directions.

Doug L.
Doug Anderson - 22 Jul 2009 01:25 GMT
> (I clicked the wrong button and sent this as an e-mail.  It should bounce -
> if it ever went.)
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> property is common.  So are bitter disputes over property and
> children.

Right.  So how would the 10 year marriage solve this?  Any property
and children would still need to be dealt with.

> >Yes, given your attitude toward your wife in particular, and toward
> >women in general, not being married would seem like the better choice
> >for you.
>
> I have no objection to women in general.

I believe that you mean this.  But you say many things about women in
general that are both stereotyping and extremely negative.  

So even though I think you mean it when you say you have no objection
to women in general, based on the other things you've written I think
that in fact you _do_ have objections to women in general - you just
don't realize it.

For example, the George Moore quote you put in your signature
indicates an objection to women in general.

> There are women that I admire.  
> There are women that I find delightful.  I believe that the world would be
> the poorer without them  - and not from any American, ornamental point of
> view.  I don't want strippers, or buxom girls jumping out of birthday cakes.  
> That is demeaning to them.  It has never been part of the egalitarian
> Australian culture.

I have to admit that neither your story about someone introducing herself to
you by her first name (in spite of her privilege to be addressed as
"Lady") nor the fact that Australia has "allowed" women into the work
place quite convinces me that Australia is an especially egalitarian
place.

It is when you write things like this:

> Men are inclined to be too rational, and women are inclined to be
> subjective, emotional.

that I think you have trouble just treating women as individuals,
which is bound to lead to trouble in a relationship.

You've been posting here for quite a while.  I've found you to be
often intelligent,  usually compassionate and courteous, and generally
a nice human being.

_But_ I don't see you as being particularly rational, and given your
description of your wife, it sounds to me like in your particular
marriage, you are the more subjective and emotional and she is the
more intellectual.
Doug Laidlaw - 22 Jul 2009 08:43 GMT
> You've been posting here for quite a while.  I've found you to be
> often intelligent,  usually compassionate and courteous, and generally
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> marriage, you are the more subjective and emotional and she is the
> more intellectual.

You would be quite right there.  She is the rational one.  Her father was an
engineer, and she did pharmacy.  Because of that, she seems not to be able
to comprehend what I say about emotions.  We seem so different, but while
courting, we were described as the perfect lovers.  That one really
surprised me.  My psychiatrist says that we are plainly suited to each
other.

I am probably an emotional type forced to be an intellectual.  I once
commented that part of me would like to have been very artistic.  My
daughter would study nothing but dance.  But my father, while encouraging my
musical abilities, placed great store by intellectual achievement.  His
father did it to him and his brother as well, wanting them both to become
doctors.  My father became a dentist instead.  I was pressured to perform
well at school and was Dux of my school at high school level (Year 12.)  I
also took out an award for topping my State in French (Those with an
advantage of birth or language in the home were excluded.)  I am too
intellectual, and had the image of a "geek".  I can't get close to people.  
Iwas the eldest, with a younger brother and sister.  In my teen years, when
the others showed an interest in girls, I had no interest at all. Being in a
school for boys only did not help.  A girl in second year University showed
an interest in me, but I didn't follow it up.  My wife was my first real
girlfriend, and I was prepared for her to be the first of several, but it
didn't work out that way.  By the late 1960's, we were both ready to settle
down.  I thought that she was reeling me in too fast.

I was a difficult birth, and was under a neurologist for years.  I wasn't
told why, but I understand that I suffered some oxygen loss and consequent
brain damage in the motor area.  My co-ordination is bad, but not enough to
be noticeable.  My movements are sloppy.  My reflexes have been affected to
some extent.  Sports are out for me.  But basically, I feel emotionally
isolated.

As if that wasn't enough disabilities, I inherited depression from my
grandmother.  The neuro diagnosed it early, but my father "didn't believe"
in depression.  He followed the opinions of his day.   In his opinion I was
just gutless, not sick.  They were saying the same thing then about soldiers
with shell-shock.  I have traced my family tree back through my grandmother
to 1805, then forward to other relatives.  There are cases of depression and
suicide everywhere.  My nearest affected relative was my cousin, for whom my
father showed contempt.  Xorra had depression in her family; two of her
sisters were affected.  Recently, she posted that it had her in its grip,
and would not go away.  I react differently.  Mike Corley
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corley_Conspiracy) probably has a different
problem.  He gets out of hand, apparently, only when he goes off his
medication.  I haven't heard from him for a few years.  I think that it was
most unfair to hold him up to public ridicule, as "the man who has seen George
Orwell's 1984," although it is a pretty accurate description.

I think that you are pretty aware of the issues surrounding depression.  
There are no quick cures.  Some cases respond to counselling or cognitive
therapy, others to drugs.  Every touted cure "works" (for some.)  All the
support sites can do is offer information, and I already have enough of
that.  There is evidence that inherited cases, like Xorra and me, have
different brains.  I have been on antidepressants of every class at one time
or another.  My psychiatrist has tackled my case by trying to restore what
my brain chemistry is failing at.  Normal SSRIs (I am on Efexor,) were some
help.  Her latest trick, which seems to have been very successful, is l-
methionine, a precursor of Sam-e. (see http://www.mentalmeds.org .) Straight
Sam-e was too strong for me, but with l-methionine, my mood is much closer
to normal.  That was based on tests, and won't necessarily be the right
thing for others.  But I will never be entirely free of it.  Many just fold
their hands and wait for the right drug to come along.  I have always tried
to look on it as a disability, and to live to the full where I can.

We went to Queensland for a fortnight ending June 28.  I handled it very
well, and we got very close.  Perhaps we got too close; I have heard of one
couple who had a similar vacation, then re-established the old comfort zone
with an almighty row.  I always feel as though home has a psychological
dimension, if I can put it that way.  It encourages certain attitudes and
habits.  That is part of how a home is different from a house.  The concept
seems peculiar to the English language.  It doesn't exist in French, for
example, although we may use the word "home" when translating.  I wonder how
other cultures manage without a word for "home."

Perhaps I am too subjective.  Perhaps I get out of control.  On one occasion
I was on the phone to my daughter.  I have absolutely no recollection of the
conversation.  I feel easily devalued.  When I am in the grip of the thing,
it takes control.  I can realise that I am being unreasonable, but that is
my reality at that moment.  There is always the feeling that others can't
experience what I am feeling, so they can't understand.  I am, if you like,
emotionally disabled to some extent.  I attended the Australian 12-step
group, GROW for some time, before I knew what my diagnosis was.  But during
the past few days my wife has been worried about me.  Now I am back pretty
well to normal (for me.) We had an appointment together this afternoon, and
went out for coffee afterwards.

Thank you for your support.

Doug L.
Signature

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.
  - Immanuel Kant

Doug Laidlaw - 24 Jul 2009 00:02 GMT
>> You've been posting here for quite a while.  I've found you to be
>> often intelligent,  usually compassionate and courteous, and generally
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> I am probably an emotional type forced to be an intellectual.  I once
> commented that part of me would like to have been very artistic.  

I won't be posting further in this thread.  Usually I am over these bouts
within a few days, and on Wednesday I thought that I was O.K.  But it is
hanging on.  I don't know if posting is ding any harm, but I can't see any
benefit either.  I am inclined to "blog."  The Irish site
http://www.theblackdog.net/ has a "black hole" for those moments (link from
the Home Page, if anybody wants to use it,) but at these times, I am
desperate to connect with somebody, even negatively.  The same feelings of
isolation coming back.

I doubt that the brain theory is relevant.  I had an MRI a few years ago
that was completely clear.  I have been offered another one if I want it,
but nothing can have changed to any large extent.  The research showed it as
present from the beginning.  In any case, no way of arresting it is known.  
I have an appointment with my psychiatrist next week.  She is inclined to
push her vitamin remedies, but they have largely worked.  The problem is
that depression is such a slippery customer, so little is known about it,
and treatment is very hit-and-miss: one keeps trying until something works.

I appreciate my wife.  She has been very supportive this week.  It hasn't
been easy for her.  As a pharmacist, she has had to come to grips with a
condition she wasn't aware of when she married me, and one that doesn't fit
the normal framework of treatment that she is used to.  When I am sane, we
can be very happy together.

Thank you all for your support, Stephanie too.

Doug L.
Signature

Twist them, twine them; even so
Mingle human bliss and woe.
 -- (?) Sir W. Scott: Spindle Song.

Stephanie - 22 Jul 2009 12:53 GMT
>> (I clicked the wrong button and sent this as an e-mail.  It should
>> bounce - if it ever went.)
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> place quite convinces me that Australia is an especially egalitarian
> place.

It says more about Doug than it does about Australia.

> It is when you write things like this:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> marriage, you are the more subjective and emotional and she is the
> more intellectual.
phelbooth - 22 Jul 2009 02:16 GMT
> (I clicked the wrong button and sent this as an e-mail.  It should bounce -
> if it ever went.)
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> >women in general, not being married would seem like the better choice
> >for you.

I was a bit surprised by the conclusion, too, for Doug hasn't ever
appeared to me to have any real sexist hang-ups, hating all women,
etc.

But I think I am speaking from a place close to home here. I was
tired, sick and tired, of my STBX's "child in the middle of the road"
behaviors, and certainly that weariness--which many of you witnessed
and helped me through--affected (and even infected) some general
feelings toward marriage and yes, dating.

What will happen with my current perspectives is hard to say, but I
think the point we're missing is that you- Doug has just said he's
going to move forward, taking care of himself. I, for one, offer
sincere good wishes and a general willingness to listen, and want you
to know it's OK to get pissed off. There are some in this group who
will take our moments of hurt and fear (when we are most likely to act
pissed off) and use them insultingly, without regard for the situation
or the larger context, and I just want you to know I will try to be as
good a friend to you as many have been to me.

Home again,
Fill

> I have no objection to women in general.  There are women that I admire.  
> There are women that I find delightful.  I believe that the world would be
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> Doug L.
Sarah Lister - 22 Jul 2009 16:20 GMT
> Men are inclined to be too rational, and women are inclined to be
> subjective, emotional.

I am NOT irrational!  You are SO MEAN!  I hate you!  Wahh!

Sarah
phelbooth - 23 Jul 2009 01:48 GMT
> > Men are inclined to be too rational, and women are inclined to be
> > subjective, emotional.
>
> I am NOT irrational!  You are SO MEAN!  I hate you!  Wahh!
>
> Sarah

Doug L could easily find supporting evidence, and the good thing is
that this is a plus for women--and for men who share those more
subjective, intuitive, emotional intelligences.
Bill in Co - 23 Jul 2009 03:13 GMT
>>> Men are inclined to be too rational, and women are inclined to be
>>> subjective, emotional.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> that this is a plus for women--and for men who share those more
> subjective, intuitive, emotional intelligences.

So, by their upbringing, and other mostly environmental factors, are men
more inclined to be more logical, and women to be more subjective?   Heck,
child rearing alone might do that!
phelbooth - 23 Jul 2009 03:24 GMT
On Jul 22, 9:13 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> >>> Men are inclined to be too rational, and women are inclined to be
> >>> subjective, emotional.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> more inclined to be more logical, and women to be more subjective?   Heck,
> child rearing alone might do that!

My understanding is that both nature and nurture create this, but in
no way to I claim it to be 100% true for *all* men or women. And Doug
L uses the term "rational" which is slightly different from logical,
for emotions and subjective connections can be very logical.
Bill in Co - 23 Jul 2009 03:32 GMT
> On Jul 22, 9:13 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> L uses the term "rational" which is slightly different from logical,
> for emotions and subjective connections can be very logical.

I woulda mentioned the nature part of that too, but feared Sarah and Steph
would come after me with a fishing hook.

Yes, "rational" is better than "logical" in this context.    Thanks.   :-)

But I think you and I agree about the gist of this (as a rough
generalization), anyways, even though it is absolutely NOT PC to admit it.
And especially today.
phelbooth - 23 Jul 2009 03:43 GMT
On Jul 22, 9:32 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 9:13 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> generalization), anyways, even though it is absolutely NOT PC to admit it.
> And especially today.

I reject the way "PC" is bandied about today.

I know there is scientific, psychological, and sociological evidence
that support the general claim while allowing for numerous deviations.
While I can't and won't look them up now (too busy with my second
chapter, and my summer class in its final week), I am absolutely sure
of this and leave it for those of you who wish to look it up to do so.

I like fishing, as long as there are no trolling boats :)

How's it going Beams?
Bill in Co - 23 Jul 2009 04:05 GMT
> On Jul 22, 9:32 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> I reject the way "PC" is bandied about today.

Me too.   Sigh, I was born too late.   WAAAY too late, for this damn world.
(Although I do like my computer and portable mp3 player, but that's about
it)
(OK, and the fact that they don't have to tie a string to a door to yank out
a tooth anymore.   And that we now have electric lights - and radio,
although even that (radio) has gone way downhill since its early days)

> I know there is scientific, psychological, and sociological evidence
> that support the general claim while allowing for numerous deviations.
> While I can't and won't look them up now (too busy with my second
> chapter, and my summer class in its final week), I am absolutely sure
> of this and leave it for those of you who wish to look it up to do so.

Let's dump that on Doug A, who strongly disagrees with the premise.  :-)
Nope, on second thought, forget that one.

> I like fishing, as long as there are no trolling boats :)

I think we have some trolling boats occasionally drift up the channel in
here.

> How's it going Beams?

I'm still here.   :-)   Anyways, it's good to see you back in here.   :-)
phelbooth - 23 Jul 2009 04:24 GMT
On Jul 22, 10:05 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 9:32 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> (Although I do like my computer and portable mp3 player, but that's about
> it)

Disagree. You were born at just the right time.

> (OK, and the fact that they don't have to tie a string to a door to yank out
> a tooth anymore.  

So, of course today when I went the tooth really didn't hurt anymore.
It was just the first week  after the second two-hour drilling session
recovering...

And that we now have electric lights - and radio,
> although even that (radio) has gone way downhill since its early days)

I could almost always find a classic rock station on my trip, and when
I couldn't, I had my own to put in. :)

> > I know there is scientific, psychological, and sociological evidence
> > that support the general claim while allowing for numerous deviations.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I think we have some trolling boats occasionally drift up the channel in
> here.

Yeah....I thot there was some weird undercurrent for awhile.

> > How's it going Beams?
>
> I'm still here.   :-)   Anyways, it's good to see you back in here.   :-)

I didn't leave--just couldn't talk much each day--but tried to keep up
some and missed you and all
Fill
Bill in Co - 23 Jul 2009 06:21 GMT
> On Jul 22, 10:05 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> Disagree. You were born at just the right time.

I don't think so!!

>> (OK, and the fact that they don't have to tie a string to a door to yank
>> out
>> a tooth anymore.
>
> So, of course today when I went the tooth really didn't hurt anymore.

That doesn't mean everything is hunky-dory, though.

> It was just the first week  after the second two-hour drilling session
> recovering...

I hope this is getting better, though.   And that you don't have to lose any
teeth, like in the old days.  (Did *I* just concede that???  Geeesh, stone
me, already)

> And that we now have electric lights - and radio,
>> although even that (radio) has gone way downhill since its early days)
>
> I could almost always find a classic rock station on my trip, and when
> I couldn't, I had my own to put in. :)

FM Radio doesn't go very far (like 50-100 miles), and AM radio has
completely fallen by the wayside and just become talk radio, for the most
part.   It's all gone downhill.

Well, ok, there's always satellite radio, I suppose, for those with the
$$$bucks.  But at night you can get AM radio from some distance (it skips in
and out due to the ionosphere, but, as I said, there's no substance there
anymore; those days are LONG gone).

>>> I know there is scientific, psychological, and sociological evidence
>>> that support the general claim while allowing for numerous deviations.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> some and missed you and all
> Fill
Doug Laidlaw - 23 Jul 2009 04:43 GMT
>> On Jul 22, 9:13 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> generalization), anyways, even though it is absolutely NOT PC to admit it.
> And especially today.

Isn't it amazing how people read the words one by one, Bill?  Sarah, you are
not irrational.  Remember that these are generalities, and say nothing about
any individual.  As the woman, you have a valuable contribution to make,
because you can see things that a man might miss.  I have always valued that
contribution, from any woman.  If the world is going to be PC and ignore
facts that, as Bill says, are scientifically proved ,society will be the
poorer.

In a given situation, the average man will work more from the head and will
choose the logical solution, and not be entirely aware of how many toes he
treads on.  A woman will see the feelings of those affected.  A proper
solution requires both inputs.  Remember, these are generalities.  They are
if you like a statistical average, not real people.  Each of us is unique.

A good example is our former Premier, Jeff Kennett.  He started the
Australian depression initiative, www.beyondblue.org.au and still runs it.  
He deserves a lot of credit for that.  But in politics, he could have taught
Bush a thing or two about absolutism.

In an article, he claims credit for "saving Victoria" from ruin.  (Cicero
claimed the same, and lost his head.)  Yet he still can't work out why, when
that was going so well, he lost power in a landslide election.  The electors
know why.  His interest in ordinary people was absolutely nil.  He ran the
State as if it was a large corporation, which hires and fires workers as if
they were trading stock.  He had no interest in country Victoria, and
thought it not worth bothering about.  One never heard from his ministers
about their portfolios; he did all the talking.  He abolished the office of
Auditor-General, the Parliamentary watchdog, inherited from the Westminster
system, because it was too critical of his antics.  He had absolutely no
people skills.  I can't see how, with his inflated self-esteem, he would
have any empathy with the depressed, but the site is now a national one.

There may be women like him.  Margaret Thatcher was called "The Iron Lady",
which doesn't sound exactly feminine.  Do I have to say a third time,
generalities and universalities are very different things?

Doug L.
Signature

If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are absolutely right.
  -- Henry Ford.

Bill in Co - 23 Jul 2009 06:12 GMT
>>> On Jul 22, 9:13 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> about
> any individual.

Exactly.

> As the woman, you have a valuable contribution to make,
> because you can see things that a man might miss.  I have always valued
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> are
> if you like a statistical average, not real people.  Each of us is unique.

And that's the point that is being lost by some.   I think because they
can't separate themselves from any such generalizations; they take it
personally.   But that's an error in judgement.

> A good example is our former Premier, Jeff Kennett.  He started the
> Australian depression initiative, www.beyondblue.org.au and still runs it.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> which doesn't sound exactly feminine.  Do I have to say a third time,
> generalities and universalities are very different things?

Yes, I'm afraid so.  :-)
Doug Anderson - 23 Jul 2009 08:18 GMT
> >> On Jul 22, 9:13 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> facts that, as Bill says, are scientifically proved ,society will be the
> poorer.

Doug, the thing that is so bizarre about the paragraphs above (coming
from you and Bill) is that Sarah is far more rational than either you
or Bill.

You insist on valuing Sarah "as a woman" when the truth is that one of
her values is that she is good at analyzing things rationally.
Bill in Co - 23 Jul 2009 22:09 GMT
>>>> On Jul 22, 9:13 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> You insist on valuing Sarah "as a woman" when the truth is that one of
> her values is that she is good at analyzing things rationally.

Apparently you didn't read or understand what he said.    The fact that
Sarah is good at analyzing things was NEVER in dispute.    It really isn't
that hard to understand what he wrote, Doug.
Doug Laidlaw - 26 Jul 2009 16:32 GMT
> Doug, the thing that is so bizarre about the paragraphs above (coming
> from you and Bill) is that Sarah is far more rational than either you
> or Bill.
>
> You insist on valuing Sarah "as a woman" when the truth is that one of
> her values is that she is good at analyzing things rationally.

How does that change anything?  Are you saying that the minute that Sarah
talks rationally, she is no longer being a woman?

Sarah said that I was saying that she is irrational.  Since even you, Doug,
are twisting Sarah's and my words to give them a different meaning, I will
quote her:

>> >>>>> I am NOT irrational! You are SO MEAN! I hate you! Wahh!

(BTW, if that is a rational statement, I may as well give up now!  But that
is a punch I can roll with.  I can see where Sarah is coming from, and the
statement's overall context.  I am not being lawyer-like now, dissecting
individual words.)

I replied that I said nothing of the kind about Sarah:

>> Sarah, you
>> are
>> not irrational.  Remember that these are generalities, and say nothing
>> about
>> any individual.

The male chauvinist brigade on soc.men keep bringing up single instances of
women acting disgracefully.  Even if they list 100,000, that is only a drop
in the ocean, compared to the total population.  But to see the same tactics
used here -- that amazes me!  Generalities and unviversalities are two very
different things.  If it was women's nature, they could reply tit for tat.  
But that is one way that women are different.

I then went on to say that a woman's attributes are just as important as a
man's. Naturally I addressed it to Sarah, to offset any negative view she
had taken.

>> As the woman, you have a valuable contribution to make,
>> because you can see things that a man might miss.  I have always valued
>> that
>> contribution, from any woman.

It means exactly what it says, that I appreciate women for who they are.  I
don't make comparisons, and I certainly don't judge people on the basis of
whether or not they fit in pigeon-holes.

If you are saying that Sarah is one of the modern breed of women who are
more men than women, that is a pity.  She would probably disagree.  Society
still needs both points of view.  And as Bill says, there is a whole body of
scientific evidence to support my thesis.  Deny it if you like.

If you are saying that a woman can be rational in the broader sense, as
opposed to irrational, rather than as opposed to logical men, I would quite
agree with you.  Why have the last two Secretaries of State and top
negotiators been women?  How did women come to be so popular in the
workforce generally, if they are "irrational?"

I don't want to continue this discussion, because apparently it hits at
exactly why everybody is here - they are trying to be what they are not.  
Otherwise Bill and I would not be meeting such impassioned opposition from
every side.  As my psychiatrist has told me more than once, a forum for
the maritally ill is not the place to learn marital health.  You recommend
"Passionate Marriage" - well, read it! Particularly his personal story on
Page 1 of the Intro.  Being your true selves and not some man-made
concoction, is what the book is all about, and it isn't the only one.  He
sees it as essential for a rewarding marriage.  If you want a mish-mash of
medicine and religion to the same effect, read "Boundaries at Home" by Cloud
and Townsend.  Our daughter gave us her copy of the Australian edition, and
I saw it in a book shop at the airport, but it was originally published as
two books by Zondervan, Michigan.  It quotes about 4 verses of the Bible on
each page.  When I first opened it at random, the statement in large print
on the page seemed taken straight from "Passionate Marriage"  Two doctors
and a Ph.D. can't all be wrong.

Doug L.
Signature

If you don't have a dream,
How are you going to have a dream come true?
  - Oscar Hammerstein II.

Doug Anderson - 26 Jul 2009 17:49 GMT
> > Doug, the thing that is so bizarre about the paragraphs above (coming
> > from you and Bill) is that Sarah is far more rational than either you
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> How does that change anything?  Are you saying that the minute that Sarah
> talks rationally, she is no longer being a woman?

No, _you_ are saying that.  You say that men are more rational and
when Sarah and I point out that this generalization makes no sense,
you respond by saying that women (and Sarah) are valuable for other
things!

(snip)

> If you are saying that Sarah is one of the modern breed of women who are
> more men than women, that is a pity.

Not what I'm saying at all.  _You_ are saing this.  Because you think
rationality is a male quality, when I point out that Sarah is
rational, you think I'm saying she is a men.
Bill in Co - 27 Jul 2009 05:22 GMT
>>> Doug, the thing that is so bizarre about the paragraphs above (coming
>>> from you and Bill) is that Sarah is far more rational than either you
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> rationality is a male quality, when I point out that Sarah is
> rational, you think I'm saying she is a men.

Sigh....
Alas, I think it's a lost cause....
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate....."
Bob Muncie - 27 Jul 2009 05:42 GMT
>>>> Doug, the thing that is so bizarre about the paragraphs above (coming
>>>> from you and Bill) is that Sarah is far more rational than either you
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Alas, I think it's a lost cause....
> "What we have here, is a failure to communicate....."

But I can eat *lots* of hard boiled eggs, and therefore earn your
respect.... just following suit :-)
Bob Muncie - 27 Jul 2009 05:46 GMT
>>>> Doug, the thing that is so bizarre about the paragraphs above (coming
>>>> from you and Bill) is that Sarah is far more rational than either you
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Alas, I think it's a lost cause....
> "What we have here, is a failure to communicate....."

Could a "brain fart" be the cause of this mystery?

Just wondering,

Bob
Bill in Co - 27 Jul 2009 05:29 GMT
>> Doug, the thing that is so bizarre about the paragraphs above (coming
>> from you and Bill) is that Sarah is far more rational than either you
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
> Otherwise Bill and I would not be meeting such impassioned opposition from
> every side.

I don't know if that's exactly it, though.   I'd just categorize it as a
(more generalized) issue of denial, of sorts.   And:  taking things too
literally and personally, and not generally seeing the forest for the trees.
It can be a bit frustrating, however.   But then again, in this newage PC
world, maybe we should expect less.   But it's just hard getting to that
point.   Maybe that's a good thing.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie - 21 Jul 2009 18:44 GMT
"Jenny <rbjayy@yahoo.com>" wrote about using hypnotism on one's spouse.

If it's done with the spouse's advance knowledge and approval, great.
I've heard of people undergoing hypnosis to get over fear of flying, or
to stop smoking, and so on.  I suppose if someone considers him or
herself to have a bad habit, and thinks hypnotism will help, it doesn't
seem especially problematic if it's one's spouse who originally
suggests it.  I wouldn't want there to be any emotional pressure or
other duress applied, of course, but barring that I don't know of any
reason why hypnotism isn't a valid form of therapy for someone who
feels the need to explore therapy.

But that doesn't seem to be what's under discussion, rather, it seems
to be a matter of using techniques of hypnotism to manipulate another
person.  Of that, I see little to like at all.

Shakespeare (_Twelfth Night_, III, 2) wrote "Love sought is good, but
giv'n unsought is better".  By the time you get down to "love gotten
only from someone programmed to do it", I gotta say I don't see what
that's worth at all.

Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Did someone stand the internet on end and all the nutters rolled down
this end ??" -- Edward Cowling
Doug Laidlaw - 26 Jul 2009 09:29 GMT
> Shakespeare (_Twelfth Night_, III, 2) wrote "Love sought is good, but
> giv'n unsought is better".  By the time you get down to "love gotten
> only from someone programmed to do it", I gotta say I don't see what
> that's worth at all.

I read a sci-fi story on that theme once.  Escort girls were "programmed" to
give genuine selfless "true" love.  A w/e with one was like the best
honeymoon ever.  But what happened when the girl was switched off?  The guy
couldn't hack it.  His need for love for life had been tapped into.  I
haven't seen "Shakespeare in Love" but understand that Shakespeare decides
to sample the kind of love that Romeo and Juliet couldn't live without, then
walk away from the affair and do something different.  Just as stupid, but
just as typical of the present-day feeling that everything is transitory,
even love.  He would feel like the guy in the first story.

But can love be programmed, by hypnotism or otherwise?  It has been said
that hypnotism cannot make a person do what is against his fundamental
nature.  The O.P. wants to keep her man the same as when she married him.  I
think that any woman would like that - it makes for certainty.  My wife
didn't know what she was in for.  But it could make for a very boring
husband - and a very boring environment in every way.  The O.P. is a crank,
or else she is wanting a honeymoon for life. The "true love" fairy story
again.  Marital counselors don't believe in it. They call courtship and the
honeymoon "immature love." The honeymoon is only getting to know one
another, the beginning of the adventure that is married life.  And G.B. Shaw
wrote: "A lifetime of happiness ...  It would be hell on earth." (Man and
Superman.)

Doug L.
Signature

It has been said that love makes us believe in immortality, because it is
inconceivable that the most masterful of our emotions must be limited to
just a few years.  (Or something to that effect - origin now forgotten.)

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.