Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not trying to be contentious here, but what is the difference? I am going on the assumption that both parents are equally suited to be custodial parents, but you said you thought your father was a better choice in your case.
It's not stereotypical, I'm afraid. It's typical.
Were the arrangements unfair to your mother? Did she demonstrate by her behavior that she should not have been allowed to raise you equally? Or did the court just screw her over?
Well, I'm going to be in misery if I'm married, because I'm married to someone who causes me misery. If I'm not married, I'll be in misery because I won't be able to be with and raise my children. I'll take the latter any day, and I think my boys would too. They'd rather have two parents than one and a fraction. Their security is better when there are two parents in the home.
I started a new thread to continue this side discussion.
There is hope, depending on where you live. My Mom is a lawyer. She says where she is this has changed a LOT. I know that where I live, there are SAHDs receiving full custody and Mom receiving visitation WITH spousal support. Done strictly by who cared most for the children and the income.
I am guessing that the more conservative like the South in the states it is much different.
i think the real issue is legal. without legal control over someone (marriage and divorce law) u have much less power over them. the relationship becomes more "open" bek of their lack of ability to inflict massive damage on you. it becomes employment at will doesnt it?
the unrestricted relationship empowers you and lessens the power of the anaconda that has been calling itself your "partner". if they have no legal claim of ownership over you, u r empowered.
is this a good thing? i think so.
I think it's lust. Which brings us back to, why not just stay single then?
I never have understood this argument. If you have two people who love each other, who want to spend the rest of their lives together as a couple, but who nonetheless do not want to limit their sexuality to just each other, why NOT get married? The outside sexual interests, though in some cases may become close personal friends, will never rise to the import of the central relationship.
And what man would be ok with knowing his wife is getting it on with another guy?
I am such a man. I have never desired monogamy. It took me until my late 20s before I was able to admit that, even to myself, but it was always true. I have seen my lovely bride in sexual situations with hundreds of different men and women. Not only am I ok with it, I enjoy it immensely.
I am having a very hard time understanding this. Would you mind to share how you can be in love with someone so much and still feel the need to sleep around with others? I'd think that if I want to be kicking it with other men, then I can't be in love with the one I am married to.
It's just sex. Would you mind your spouse playing chess, or tennis, or golf with another person? For us, that's no different.
I get that you and your wife have mutual consent, but I don't know anyone else who feels the way you do. The idea of my wife being with with anyone other than me sickens and enrages me at the same time.
It's just sex. Would you mind your spouse playing chess, or tennis, or golf with another person? For us, that's no different.
Do as you like - but if you think sex is just as unimportant in a couple's married life as chess, tennis or golf, you are truly twisted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.