On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:01:31 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 3:45:43 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>>
>> As an adult, when I looked back, I felt the nuns who mistreated me
>> were likely unmarried, spinsters, so had a problem or perhaps
>> *******s. Or maybe they just did not want to marry or have kids. They
>> went into the convent and then were detailed off to do something they
>> disliked. Not that it excuses it, especially since I was not there by
>> choice, but circumstance.
>>
>>
>There were two Home Economic teachers when I was in junior high and I
>had each of these terrors in the 7th and 8th grades. One was a widow
>and the other one was an old maid. Some people have no business teach-
>ing school and certainly no business around young teenage girls. Both
>were post menopausal and they're the reason I never touched another
>sewing machine for 40 years. Thankfully they didn't put me off cooking.

Lol somehow there should be some policing of who teaches the young!

On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 08:23:00 +1100, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 17:46:48 -0300, wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 07:08:37 +1100, Bruce >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 12:58:34 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>I have an uncle by marriage who was raised a Catholic and attended
>>>>Catholic schools. He said the nuns at the school he attended were
>>>>nothing but child abusers dressed as nuns.
>>>
>>>It depends on the particular people who you happen to be dealing with,
>>>nuns or not. Although I do think that male celibacy is asking for
>>>trouble.
>>
>>It provides a good hiding place, who queries a 40 year old bachelor if
>>he's a priest, you don't see the sticks for the trees.
>
>If you have a bunch of *** priests, driven nuts by celibacy, why don't
>they have sex with each other and leave young boys alone? I never
>understand that. At least *** men don't have to hide in a celibate
>church anymore in this day and age.

But we are talking paedophiles, which is still not acceptable,
understandably, today.

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 15:53:00 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 5:30:02 PM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > I have an uncle by marriage who was raised a Catholic and attended
>> > Catholic schools. He said the nuns at the school he attended were
>> > nothing but child abusers dressed as nuns.
>>
>> My dh says the same, but not sexual abuse where he was. He was in the first
>> grade and picked up a hose in the school yard, Sister Anastasia told him to
>> drop it and come back, he dropped it but ran. The next day she spanked him
>> with the hose which left marks. Totally acceptable in those days, and you
>> were lucky if your parents didn't add a whomp or two of their own for
>> disrespecting sister. LOL
>>
>> Cheri
>>
>>
>His wasn't sexual abuse either, just downright mean women who knew they
>had the power to abuse and ridicule children.

I'm with you, having endured it there's no humour here

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 20:36:50 -0300, wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 08:23:00 +1100, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 17:46:48 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 07:08:37 +1100, Bruce >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 12:58:34 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>I have an uncle by marriage who was raised a Catholic and attended
>>>>>Catholic schools. He said the nuns at the school he attended were
>>>>>nothing but child abusers dressed as nuns.
>>>>
>>>>It depends on the particular people who you happen to be dealing with,
>>>>nuns or not. Although I do think that male celibacy is asking for
>>>>trouble.
>>>
>>>It provides a good hiding place, who queries a 40 year old bachelor if
>>>he's a priest, you don't see the sticks for the trees.
>>
>>If you have a bunch of *** priests, driven nuts by celibacy, why don't
>>they have sex with each other and leave young boys alone? I never
>>understand that. At least *** men don't have to hide in a celibate
>>church anymore in this day and age.
>
>But we are talking paedophiles, which is still not acceptable,
>understandably, today.

But if you're a straight man, you'd abuse girls. Anyway, you're right,
being a paedo overrules *** or straight and makes you a creep.

On 2017-10-01 7:34 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:01:31 -0700 (PDT), "

>> There were two Home Economic teachers when I was in junior high and I
>> had each of these terrors in the 7th and 8th grades. One was a widow
>> and the other one was an old maid. Some people have no business teach-
>> ing school and certainly no business around young teenage girls. Both
>> were post menopausal and they're the reason I never touched another
>> sewing machine for 40 years. Thankfully they didn't put me off cooking.
>
> Lol somehow there should be some policing of who teaches the young!
>

There is lots of policing of who teaches the young, but it is not always
effective. FWIW, my wife used to work with a woman who was accused of
having molested a primary student. She went through hell and was
eventually vindicated. It turned out that the kid had been molested, but
at the hands of an uncle. The mother of the kid was not sympathetic to
the plight of our friend, saying that if she had not been guilty she had
nothing to worry about. Easy for her to say. When a person is falsely
accused of molesting a child they are usually assumed to be guilty and
it is hard to get rid of that stigma.

On 10/1/2017 5:16 PM, Casa de Masa wrote:

>>>
>> I have an uncle by marriage who was raised a Catholic and attended
>> Catholic schools.Â* He said the nuns at the school he attended were
>> nothing but child abusers dressed as nuns.
>>
>
> Far too common a retelling to be anything but true.

Every situation is different. I had 12 years of Catholic school. I got
a very good education. I was never abused, but discipline was stricter
than the public schools at the time.

Though they made us follow the rules, I was also taught to think on my
own and make decision, such as much of the religion is BS.

You also have to consider the alternatives. The Philadelphia Catholic
school system was ranked as one of the best in the county, in the top
five. The public school system was ranked in the bottom 10.

When we moved to CT, we kept our kids in Catholic school. After a year,
we realized it was not the same and moved them to the public school.
Our kids were about a year ahead from Philly compared to the schools here.

On 10/1/2017 6:53 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 5:30:02 PM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:

>> My dh says the same, but not sexual abuse where he was. He was in the first
>> grade and picked up a hose in the school yard, Sister Anastasia told him to
>> drop it and come back, he dropped it but ran. The next day she spanked him
>> with the hose which left marks. Totally acceptable in those days, and you
>> were lucky if your parents didn't add a whomp or two of their own for
>> disrespecting sister. LOL

> His wasn't sexual abuse either, just downright mean women who knew they
> had the power to abuse and ridicule children.

That was my first nun as teacher story, my best friend saying she had
to sit under the nun's desk because the nun said she looked like a
witch. I'm sure it didn't help that she was left handed and that was
something they had to force her to change.

nancy

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:23:16 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>Every situation is different. I had 12 years of Catholic school. I got
>a very good education. I was never abused, but discipline was stricter
>than the public schools at the time.
>
>Though they made us follow the rules, I was also taught to think on my
>own and make decision, such as much of the religion is BS.
>
>You also have to consider the alternatives. The Philadelphia Catholic
>school system was ranked as one of the best in the county, in the top
>five. The public school system was ranked in the bottom 10.
>
>When we moved to CT, we kept our kids in Catholic school. After a year,
>we realized it was not the same and moved them to the public school.
>Our kids were about a year ahead from Philly compared to the schools here.

Yes, it depends on the situation. In the Tasmanian countryside where
we lived, you had a choice between a Catholic school and a public one.
At the public one, pregnancy at 16 was pretty much normal. So quite a
few non Catholic children were sent to the Catholic school, which had
higher standards.

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 7:30:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> Yes, it depends on the situation. In the Tasmanian countryside where
> we lived, you had a choice between a Catholic school and a public one.
> At the public one, pregnancy at 16 was pretty much normal. So quite a
> few non Catholic children were sent to the Catholic school, which had
> higher standards.
>
>
HUH? So it was the school's job to teach young girls not to participate
in unmarried sex and become pregnant? The parents had nothing to do with
their upbringing? It was all left up the Catholic school?

Good grief.

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 17:45:52 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 7:30:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> Yes, it depends on the situation. In the Tasmanian countryside where
>> we lived, you had a choice between a Catholic school and a public one.
>> At the public one, pregnancy at 16 was pretty much normal. So quite a
>> few non Catholic children were sent to the Catholic school, which had
>> higher standards.
>>
>>
>HUH? So it was the school's job to teach young girls not to participate
>in unmarried sex and become pregnant? The parents had nothing to do with
>their upbringing? It was all left up the Catholic school?
>
>Good grief.

Children get influenced a lot by classmates. Different schools,
different type of classmates. No?

On 10/1/2017 5:07 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 4:20:48 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
>> "dsi1" wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 3:26:51 PM UTC-10, Casa de Masa wrote:
>>>
>>> Talk to the hand...
>>
>> You're gonna need it!
>>
>> ==
>>
>> What exactly does that mean? I have seen people do that but I don't have a
>> clue what they mean!
>>
>> --
>> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
>
> It's an offensive way to shut other people up. The mere act of placing your open hand in front of someone's face is offensive. Saying "talk to the hand is icing on the cake.
>
> I have also seen it being said while walking away from a conversation. Your back is turned and your intended receiver is shown a reverse middle finger. Beats me if that gesture is used in the UK. Needless to say, it's an offensive hand gesture.
>
> What I posted has nothing to do with talking to the hand. It's a reference to a popular American TV show.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYl1UBDGKiU
>

Oh dog, that was AWKWARD!!!

On 10/1/2017 6:23 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Our kids were about a year ahead from Philly compared to the schools here.

What would Mort Krim say?!??

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 8:04:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 17:45:52 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 7:30:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, it depends on the situation. In the Tasmanian countryside where
> >> we lived, you had a choice between a Catholic school and a public one.
> >> At the public one, pregnancy at 16 was pretty much normal. So quite a
> >> few non Catholic children were sent to the Catholic school, which had
> >> higher standards.
> >>
> >>
> >HUH? So it was the school's job to teach young girls not to participate
> >in unmarried sex and become pregnant? The parents had nothing to do with
> >their upbringing? It was all left up the Catholic school?
> >
> >Good grief.
>
> Children get influenced a lot by classmates. Different schools,
> different type of classmates. No?
>
>
One word --- parenting.

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 19:03:08 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 8:04:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 17:45:52 -0700 (PDT), "
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 7:30:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it depends on the situation. In the Tasmanian countryside where
>> >> we lived, you had a choice between a Catholic school and a public one.
>> >> At the public one, pregnancy at 16 was pretty much normal. So quite a
>> >> few non Catholic children were sent to the Catholic school, which had
>> >> higher standards.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >HUH? So it was the school's job to teach young girls not to participate
>> >in unmarried sex and become pregnant? The parents had nothing to do with
>> >their upbringing? It was all left up the Catholic school?
>> >
>> >Good grief.
>>
>> Children get influenced a lot by classmates. Different schools,
>> different type of classmates. No?
>>
>>
>One word --- parenting.

Two words --- too simple.

On 2017-10-01 8:03 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 8:04:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 17:45:52 -0700 (PDT), "
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 7:30:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it depends on the situation. In the Tasmanian countryside where
>>>> we lived, you had a choice between a Catholic school and a public one.
>>>> At the public one, pregnancy at 16 was pretty much normal. So quite a
>>>> few non Catholic children were sent to the Catholic school, which had
>>>> higher standards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> HUH? So it was the school's job to teach young girls not to participate
>>> in unmarried sex and become pregnant? The parents had nothing to do with
>>> their upbringing? It was all left up the Catholic school?
>>>
>>> Good grief.
>>
>> Children get influenced a lot by classmates. Different schools,
>> different type of classmates. No?
>>
>>
> One word --- parenting.
>
No, 2: fear and guilt!

On 10/1/2017 8:10 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> One word --- parenting.
> Two words --- too simple.

Try not having any.

Dolt.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 5:30:02 PM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > I have an uncle by marriage who was raised a Catholic and attended
>> > Catholic schools. He said the nuns at the school he attended were
>> > nothing but child abusers dressed as nuns.
>>
>> My dh says the same, but not sexual abuse where he was. He was in the
>> first
>> grade and picked up a hose in the school yard, Sister Anastasia told him
>> to
>> drop it and come back, he dropped it but ran. The next day she spanked
>> him
>> with the hose which left marks. Totally acceptable in those days, and you
>> were lucky if your parents didn't add a whomp or two of their own for
>> disrespecting sister. LOL
>>
>> Cheri
>>
>>
> His wasn't sexual abuse either, just downright mean women who knew they
> had the power to abuse and ridicule children.

Yes, they could be very mean.

Cheri

On 10/1/2017 8:30 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:23:16 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> Every situation is different. I had 12 years of Catholic school. I got
>> a very good education. I was never abused, but discipline was stricter
>> than the public schools at the time.
>>
>> Though they made us follow the rules, I was also taught to think on my
>> own and make decision, such as much of the religion is BS.
>>
>> You also have to consider the alternatives. The Philadelphia Catholic
>> school system was ranked as one of the best in the county, in the top
>> five. The public school system was ranked in the bottom 10.
>>
>> When we moved to CT, we kept our kids in Catholic school. After a year,
>> we realized it was not the same and moved them to the public school.
>> Our kids were about a year ahead from Philly compared to the schools here.
>
> Yes, it depends on the situation. In the Tasmanian countryside where
> we lived, you had a choice between a Catholic school and a public one.
> At the public one, pregnancy at 16 was pretty much normal. So quite a
> few non Catholic children were sent to the Catholic school, which had
> higher standards.
>

Being a large city, Philly had some large schools. My high school was
the boys school and had 3200 students. The public high school in the
same area had a great football team, many of the players were dropouts
from our school.

On 10/1/2017 10:22 PM, graham wrote:
> On 2017-10-01 8:03 PM, wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 8:04:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 17:45:52 -0700 (PDT), "
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 7:30:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it depends on the situation. In the Tasmanian countryside where
>>>>> we lived, you had a choice between a Catholic school and a public one.
>>>>> At the public one, pregnancy at 16 was pretty much normal. So quite a
>>>>> few non Catholic children were sent to the Catholic school, which had
>>>>> higher standards.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> HUH?Â* So it was the school's job to teach young girls not to
>>>> participate
>>>> in unmarried sex and become pregnant?Â* The parents had nothing to do
>>>> with
>>>> their upbringing?Â* It was all left up the Catholic school?
>>>>
>>>> Good grief.
>>>
>>> Children get influenced a lot by classmates. Different schools,
>>> different type of classmates. No?
>>>
>>>
>> One word --- parenting.
>>
> No, 2: fear and guilt!

They used to be the strongest deterrents. No more, it seems. About 40%
of babies are to unwed mothers.

https://www.childtrends.org/indicato...married-women/
The proportion of births to unmarried women has increased greatly in
recent decades, rising from five percent in 1960 to 32 percent in 1995.
After some stability in the mid-1990s, there was a gradual rise from
1997 through 2008, from 32 to 41 percent. The rate appears to have
stabilized again, and was at 40 percent in 2014.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message ...

On 10/1/2017 5:16 PM, Casa de Masa wrote:

>>>
>> I have an uncle by marriage who was raised a Catholic and attended
>> Catholic schools. He said the nuns at the school he attended were
>> nothing but child abusers dressed as nuns.
>>
>
> Far too common a retelling to be anything but true.

Every situation is different. I had 12 years of Catholic school. I got
a very good education. I was never abused, but discipline was stricter
than the public schools at the time.

Though they made us follow the rules, I was also taught to think on my
own and make decision, such as much of the religion is BS.

You also have to consider the alternatives. The Philadelphia Catholic
school system was ranked as one of the best in the county, in the top
five. The public school system was ranked in the bottom 10.

When we moved to CT, we kept our kids in Catholic school. After a year,
we realized it was not the same and moved them to the public school.
Our kids were about a year ahead from Philly compared to the schools here.

==

I agree with that.


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

"dsi1" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 4:20:48 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
> "dsi1" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 3:26:51 PM UTC-10, Casa de Masa wrote:
> >
> > Talk to the hand...
>
> You're gonna need it!
>
> ==
>
> What exactly does that mean? I have seen people do that but I don't have
> a
> clue what they mean!
>
> --
> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

It's an offensive way to shut other people up. The mere act of placing your
open hand in front of someone's face is offensive. Saying "talk to the hand
is icing on the cake.

I have also seen it being said while walking away from a conversation. Your
back is turned and your intended receiver is shown a reverse middle finger.
Beats me if that gesture is used in the UK. Needless to say, it's an
offensive hand gesture.

What I posted has nothing to do with talking to the hand. It's a reference
to a popular American TV show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYl1UBDGKiU

==

I can't say that clarified things but but Thanks)



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 10/2/2017 3:44 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> You mean like Gloria Steinem

Steve Wertz - unrepentant woman stalker and total head case begging poor
Omelet to shoot him with a sniper rifle in austin.food:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com


Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.centraltexasfoodbank.org...ntation-057jpg

Hide the Ho Ho's!!!

On 10/3/2017 11:11 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> A mere technicality.
>
> -sw

Steve Wertz - unrepentant woman stalker and total head case begging poor
Omelet to shoot him with a sniper rifle in austin.food:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com


Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.centraltexasfoodbank.org...ntation-057jpg

Hide the Ho Ho's!!!

>On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:44:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> https://www.childtrends.org/indicato...married-women/
>> The proportion of births to unmarried women has increased greatly in
>> recent decades, rising from five percent in 1960 to 32 percent in 1995.
>> After some stability in the mid-1990s, there was a gradual rise from
>> 1997 through 2008, from 32 to 41 percent. The rate appears to have
>> stabilized again, and was at 40 percent in 2014.

Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
(let alone church) approval of your relationship.

Sqwertz wrote:
>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>graham wrote:
>>>itsjoannotjoann wrote:
>>>>Bruce wrote:
>>>>>itsjoannotjoann wrote:
>>>>>>Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it depends on the situation. In the Tasmanian countryside where
>>>>>>> we lived, you had a choice between a Catholic school and a public one.
>>>>>>> At the public one, pregnancy at 16 was pretty much normal. So quite a
>>>>>>> few non Catholic children were sent to the Catholic school, which had
>>>>>>> higher standards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> HUH?* So it was the school's job to teach young girls not participate
>>>>>> in unmarried sex and become pregnant?* The parents had nothing to do
>>>>>> with their upbringing?* It was all left up the Catholic school?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good grief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Children get influenced a lot by classmates. Different schools,
>>>>> different type of classmates. No?
>>>>>
>>>> One word --- parenting.
>>>>
>>> No, 2: fear and guilt!
>>
>> They used to be the strongest deterrents. No more, it seems. About 40%
>> of babies are to unwed mothers.
>>
>> https://www.childtrends.org/indicato...married-women/
>> The proportion of births to unmarried women has increased greatly in
>> recent decades, rising from five percent in 1960 to 32 percent in 1995.
>> After some stability in the mid-1990s, there was a gradual rise from
>> 1997 through 2008, from 32 to 41 percent. The rate appears to have
>> stabilized again, and was at 40 percent in 2014.
>
>I know a lot of people, mostly Mexicans, that have babies with a long
>time steady boyfriend, but they're not technically married - even
>after 10-20 years. That's where a large proportion of that 40% comes
>from. A mere technicality.
>
>-sw

Right, a dozen teenage wetback females each birthing a handful of
kidlets by some 40 year old drug dealing beaner... called a Texass
Haremosa! LOL

On 2017-10-03 2:53 PM, Bruce wrote:

> Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
> see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
> (let alone church) approval of your relationship.

Funny how it works in real life. Marriage was a social institution that
formalized a commitment between two people. It wasn't perfect, but it
did make it difficult to get out of the commitment. One thing that it
did ensure was alimony. Nowadays people want to live together without
that commitment, but they still expect the alimony. I realize there are
different circumstances in marital breakups, but my take on it is that I
do not think that a person's financial responsibility in a relationship
should have to continue after the relationship ends. Just because on of
the people in the relationship was financially dependent on the other
does not mean it should continue after the relationship has ended.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:54:55 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2017-10-03 2:53 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>> Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
>> see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
>> (let alone church) approval of your relationship.
>
>Funny how it works in real life. Marriage was a social institution that
>formalized a commitment between two people. It wasn't perfect, but it
>did make it difficult to get out of the commitment. One thing that it
>did ensure was alimony. Nowadays people want to live together without
>that commitment, but they still expect the alimony. I realize there are
>different circumstances in marital breakups, but my take on it is that I
>do not think that a person's financial responsibility in a relationship
>should have to continue after the relationship ends. Just because on of
>the people in the relationship was financially dependent on the other
>does not mean it should continue after the relationship has ended.

In the traditional situation, the man has the career and the woman
looks after the children and the household. Then they divorce after 30
years. Do you now want the man to be rich and the woman to be poor?

On 2017-10-03 5:56 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:54:55 -0400, Dave Smith

>> Funny how it works in real life. Marriage was a social institution that
>> formalized a commitment between two people. It wasn't perfect, but it
>> did make it difficult to get out of the commitment. One thing that it
>> did ensure was alimony. Nowadays people want to live together without
>> that commitment, but they still expect the alimony. I realize there are
>> different circumstances in marital breakups, but my take on it is that I
>> do not think that a person's financial responsibility in a relationship
>> should have to continue after the relationship ends. Just because on of
>> the people in the relationship was financially dependent on the other
>> does not mean it should continue after the relationship has ended.
>
> In the traditional situation, the man has the career and the woman
> looks after the children and the household. Then they divorce after 30
> years. Do you now want the man to be rich and the woman to be poor?


Should that not depend on the situation? Some women choose to give up
work and stay home with the kids. It beats going out to work.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 18:38:22 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2017-10-03 5:56 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:54:55 -0400, Dave Smith
>
>>> Funny how it works in real life. Marriage was a social institution that
>>> formalized a commitment between two people. It wasn't perfect, but it
>>> did make it difficult to get out of the commitment. One thing that it
>>> did ensure was alimony. Nowadays people want to live together without
>>> that commitment, but they still expect the alimony. I realize there are
>>> different circumstances in marital breakups, but my take on it is that I
>>> do not think that a person's financial responsibility in a relationship
>>> should have to continue after the relationship ends. Just because on of
>>> the people in the relationship was financially dependent on the other
>>> does not mean it should continue after the relationship has ended.
>>
>> In the traditional situation, the man has the career and the woman
>> looks after the children and the household. Then they divorce after 30
>> years. Do you now want the man to be rich and the woman to be poor?
>
>
>Should that not depend on the situation? Some women choose to give up
>work and stay home with the kids. It beats going out to work.

I don't know it it beats going out to work. It depends on the job.
She's stuck at home with housework and children.

Anyway, these days both partners often work and the children are
looked after by strangers during the day. That changes everything, I
think.

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:56:58 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
>
> I can't say that clarified things but but Thanks)
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

It's an American thing that was popular over a decade ago. Hopefully, it's the last we'll see of that!

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 8:53:23 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>
> Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
> see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
> (let alone church) approval of your relationship.

Marriage is a useful, perhaps vital, institution if one is raising kids. It might not be relevant in a society that no longer cares about raising kids.. Not having kids is trending these days. As a matter of fact, so is not being able to have kids. It looks like nature is saying "screw it" to the human race.

OTOH, my daughter's boyfriend recently did a most anachronistic thing: he took her to a restaurant, got down on one knee, presented her with a ring, and asked her to marry him. I thought that was a little nutty myself.

No, it wasn't a McDonald's.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:01:36 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 8:53:23 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
>> see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
>> (let alone church) approval of your relationship.
>
>Marriage is a useful, perhaps vital, institution if one is raising kids. It might not be relevant in a society that no longer cares about raising kids. Not having kids is trending these days. As a matter of fact, so is not being able to have kids. It looks like nature is saying "screw it" to the human race.

Lots of children are being raised just fine by unmarried parents and
lots of other children are being raised badly by parents who are
married. You hail from the 50s.

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:10:27 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>
> Lots of children are being raised just fine by unmarried parents and
> lots of other children are being raised badly by parents who are
> married. You hail from the 50s.

It this relevant to this discussion? I think not. As far as my hailing from the 50's - that's probably true. That's not relevant either. Mostly, it shows that you have to center everything around me and every move I make. That's my job, not yours fool!

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:37:23 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:10:27 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> Lots of children are being raised just fine by unmarried parents and
>> lots of other children are being raised badly by parents who are
>> married. You hail from the 50s.
>
>It this relevant to this discussion?

Very relevant. You said "marriage is a useful, perhaps vital,
institution if one is raising kids". I disagreed and said why.

> I think not. As far as my hailing from the 50's - that's probably
> true. That's not relevant either. Mostly, it shows that you have to
> center everything around me and every move I make. That's my job,
> not yours fool!

Strange conclusion. You say something, I comment. This is fairly
common in newsgroups. Actually, without it, there wouldn't be any
newsgroups.

On 2017-10-03 8:10 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>> Marriage is a useful, perhaps vital, institution if one is raising kids. It might not be relevant in a society that no longer cares about raising kids. Not having kids is trending these days. As a matter of fact, so is not being able to have kids. It looks like nature is saying "screw it" to the human race.
>
> Lots of children are being raised just fine by unmarried parents and
> lots of other children are being raised badly by parents who are
> married. You hail from the 50s.
>

Sure, lots of kids are being raised nicely by unmarried parents. There
is also a huge number of single parents on welfare and kids pretty much
doomed to a life of poverty.

On 10/3/2017 12:53 PM, Bruce wrote:
> Lots of people
> see marriage as a useless piece of paper.

And even more don't - cope, asshole.

On 10/3/2017 3:54 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> Just because on of the people in the relationshipÂ* was financially
> dependent on the other does not mean it should continue after the
> relationship has ended.

You seem painfully unaware of basic divorce law.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 21:08:10 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>You probably were thinking of the more common situation, like the kind
>where some working class shmuck ends up paying more than half his net
>pay. At the other end of the scale you have the women who married well
>living a life of luxury on alimony,

There must be lots of cases where things turn out unjust, especially
for the men. But in general, I can imagine lots of situations where
alimony is justified. All situations where children are involved, to
begin with.

>What typically happens is that the mother gets custody and the father
>has to pay child support. One of the craziest situations I heard of was
>a former co-worker with whom I used to car pool. He split up with his
>wife because she was screwing around on him. When they married she had
>a daughter from a former relationship and then they had a son. When the
>split up he applied for custody of the step daughter because he didn't
>think the ex was a fit parent. He was told that since he was not the
>biological father he had no grounds for custody. However..... since he
>was the only father she ever knew, he had to pay child support.

That would suck.

>One should be able to assume that in this day and age there should be no
>problem with him being a stay at home parent. Despite the changes in the
>work place, there seems to still be very conservative attitudes about
>the necessity for men to be employed.

This kind of conservatism also depends on the country and the age
group. This newsgroup is very conservative, for instance. Replace
everybody with northern Europeans and you get a whole different
attitude.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 20:59:15 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2017-10-03 8:10 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> Marriage is a useful, perhaps vital, institution if one is raising kids. It might not be relevant in a society that no longer cares about raising kids. Not having kids is trending these days. As a matter of fact, so is not being able to have kids. It looks like nature is saying "screw it" to the human race.
>>
>> Lots of children are being raised just fine by unmarried parents and
>> lots of other children are being raised badly by parents who are
>> married. You hail from the 50s.
>>
>
>Sure, lots of kids are being raised nicely by unmarried parents. There
>is also a huge number of single parents on welfare and kids pretty much
>doomed to a life of poverty.

It all depends on the kind of people the parents are, not on whether
they're married.

On 10/3/2017 6:01 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 8:53:23 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
>> see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
>> (let alone church) approval of your relationship.
>
> Marriage is a useful, perhaps vital, institution if one is raising kids. It might not be relevant in a society that no longer cares about raising kids. Not having kids is trending these days. As a matter of fact, so is not being able to have kids. It looks like nature is saying "screw it" to the human race.

And if one believes the social noise level the incidence homosexuality
is on the rise as well - all nature's non-breeding tools.

> OTOH, my daughter's boyfriend recently did a most anachronistic thing: he took her to a restaurant, got down on one knee, presented her with a ring, and asked her to marry him. I thought that was a little nutty myself.
>
> No, it wasn't a McDonald's.

Too many punch lines to even pick one here...