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.
So why wouldn't you just get an at fault divorce from him?
Sorry, I may have accidentally implied that I am cheating on my husband. I'm not. We are un-married by agreement after a blowup that involved him threatening me with a gun. Before then, I was faithful to him. There's only so much a person can put up with.
Now I live as a roommate in a spare bedroom of the house until he gets his financial situation a little more in order and can afford to support his household by himself, but I do my best to be out of the house as much as possible. Fortunately my new lifestyle choices give me many such opportunities, although he vastly overestimates the role that sex plays in said extracurriculars.
Also, Colorado doesn't do at fault divorces, as far as I'm aware. Not that it matters. We are attempting to be cooperative as much as possible. He's a real pain, but we don't hate one another. Also, it is in our best interest for various reasons to stay "married on paper" even though we are functionally NOT. I hold the card that if he goes off the deep end I can engage the full force of the law and push him out. I mean, "dangerous to self and others" not capable of adulting, off the deep end. It remains a persistent possibility with him. And he gets to keep me along as his personal accountant and financial advisor, managing all the money, since he's terrified of learning to do it himself.
Not all situations are what you believe them to be at first glance. My apologies for any confusion.
With regard to that, I'll put this out there for consideration:
When women behave badly due to hormonal reasons, even when older, we chalk it up to the hormones -- a much more popular possibility than her merely being badly-behaved.
Take the most powerfully-hormonal years of a male's life... and combine them with being young enough to not yet possess a fully-formed foundation (and awful alliteration) for judgment... they KNOW right from wrong, but their judgment is actually impaired by youthful stupidity and sex drive gone into overdrive.
This is NOT an excuse; but it DOES spell out why young men are often morons, seeming sex-fiends and quite ridiculous. No excuse for bad behavior, but definitely a thing worth noting.
I just KNOW someone will latch onto this, insisting it means so much more than I said, or suggesting I'm trying to excuse behavior when I am not; but there it is, at least in part.
NO, not to the extent of evading personal responsibility. When it comes to certain overt acts I will NOT buy the whole "He didn't know better" line of garbage.
But when it comes to things like confused signals, mixed societal messages for both sexes, and the above... well, it might explain a few things like pressuring (still wrong), not knowing where to draw those lines, confusion when no doesn't actually mean no (I'm teaching my son the difference between "Not yet" and last-minute "no", because that is a minefield, one requiring patience, the other requiring the realization that you are late for the nearest door; one is a girlfriend, the other is trouble waiting to happen).
I can sympathize with blurting out something regrettable, short-term moodiness and fickle behavior, irritability, stuff like that. I don't like PMS being used as a one-week Get Out of Jail Free card either.
I remember guys got talked too for wearing to short of jean shorts or no shirt too. In my experience it went both ways.
Talked to about appropriate dress in church is not the same as being guilty by association (being a woman) for the downfall of man because you don't wear a burka.
So I am not understanding the issue, I mean how many times have you been involved in conversations in church involving stuff like this. Most of the time they are discussing the bake sale .... unless you come to church dressed like a hooker then someone might say something.
I stopped going because I have issues with what all these churchs support ..... or lack of support for getting rid of no fault divorce. None of them seem to care but yet they keep pushing the purity and marriage. So there are inconsistency's there but that's another issue.
Just once and I left the church. It wasn't a conversation it was sermon.
I have heard snarky conversations between women of the church commenting on the girls wearing spaghetti strap dresses.
And really it's my opinion that all dress codes aside, what thoughts are in another person's head just are not my problem.
I cover myself with clothing in public out of respect for other people in general, and try not to act in ways that are overtly bothersome to those around me.
I use common sense about my own safety (the counting 100's in the hood thing) it's more a matter of situational awareness than what I'm wearing. If I'm in a place where it wouldn't be SAFE for me to have skin revealed because I might be attacked, then maybe I shouldn't be there at all in that time. It's the situation that's unsafe, not the fact that someone sees me wearing this or that and has nasty intentions towards me.
But to say that a woman's immodest clothing choices caused "you" (general you meaning whatever man...or woman!...) to think sinful thoughts, and therefore they should take responsibility for your spiritual damage and be punished for your inability to avert your eyes and act civilized...that is STUPID. It's an excuse for not only laziness and entitlement, but abdication of personal accountability. Does every man going into a strip joint start attacking women he sees? Nope. Do nudist women have to carry a spray bottle to get nudist men off their legs as though they were mindless animals? I don't think so, no.
At least as much as women need to have ownership of being mindful of their own safety, men also need to take ownership for the way they react to external stimuli. But various religious institutions and conservative/traditional cultures have preached the opposite forever. Women must be protected by men, men aren't responsible for temptation if an immodest woman or one of loose virtue were around. Eff that.
And really it's my opinion that all dress codes aside, what thoughts are in another person's head just are not my problem.
I cover myself with clothing in public out of respect for other people in general, and try not to act in ways that are overtly bothersome to those around me.
I use common sense about my own safety (the counting 100's in the hood thing) it's more a matter of situational awareness than what I'm wearing. If I'm in a place where it wouldn't be SAFE for me to have skin revealed because I might be attacked, then maybe I shouldn't be there at all in that time. It's the situation that's unsafe, not the fact that someone sees me wearing this or that and has nasty intentions towards me.
But to say that a woman's immodest clothing choices caused "you" (general you meaning whatever man...or woman!...) to think sinful thoughts, and therefore they should take responsibility for your spiritual damage and be punished for your inability to avert your eyes and act civilized...that is STUPID. It's an excuse for not only laziness and entitlement, but abdication of personal accountability. Does every man going into a strip joint start attacking women he sees? Nope. Do nudist women have to carry a spray bottle to get nudist men off their legs as though they were mindless animals? I don't think so, no.
At least as much as women need to have ownership of being mindful of their own safety, men also need to take ownership for the way they react to external stimuli. But various religious institutions and conservative/traditional cultures have preached the opposite forever. Women must be protected by men, men aren't responsible for temptation if an immodest woman or one of loose virtue were around. Eff that.
When it comes to "dress codes", I think there's a reasonable assumption of casual privacy, and then there's something I saw many years ago on a Howie Mandel special:
A guy from the audience said something and caught Howie's attention. Howie addressed him directly, asking him to stand up, the guy refused. Howie asked why, the guy said "I don't want people staring at me."
Howie replied "You've got your shirt unbuttoned down to your [willy] and you don't want people staring at you!?!"
While you're correct in your assertion that what lies in someone else's mind is on them, I can safely say that more than once when younger I encountered evening wear in mixed social situations that left NOTHING to the imagination and saw guys rebuffed with comments like "I can wear what I want, it doesn't mean I want some jerk drooling all over me."
I suspect this "right" to wear what one wants while insisting attention is NOT the intent is the reason as many women as men roll their eyes and s--- shame when situations are encountered.
I realize, even saying this, that there are men out there who would insist a nun was "asking for it"; but that's a grievous minority, not the widespread social epidemic we hear about. It obviously varies from crowd to crowd, and this is no longer the 80s or 90s, let alone the 70s.
Wow, I would not wish that on people that I dislike. Sorry to hear that, its suppose to be that a couple marrys early supports each other and lives happily ever after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
Sorry, I may have accidentally implied that I am cheating on my husband. I'm not. We are un-married by agreement after a blowup that involved him threatening me with a gun. Before then, I was faithful to him. There's only so much a person can put up with.
Now I live as a roommate in a spare bedroom of the house until he gets his financial situation a little more in order and can afford to support his household by himself, but I do my best to be out of the house as much as possible. Fortunately my new lifestyle choices give me many such opportunities, although he vastly overestimates the role that sex plays in said extracurriculars.
Also, Colorado doesn't do at fault divorces, as far as I'm aware. Not that it matters. We are attempting to be cooperative as much as possible. He's a real pain, but we don't hate one another. Also, it is in our best interest for various reasons to stay "married on paper" even though we are functionally NOT. I hold the card that if he goes off the deep end I can engage the full force of the law and push him out. I mean, "dangerous to self and others" not capable of adulting, off the deep end. It remains a persistent possibility with him. And he gets to keep me along as his personal accountant and financial advisor, managing all the money, since he's terrified of learning to do it himself.
Not all situations are what you believe them to be at first glance. My apologies for any confusion.
When it comes to "dress codes", I think there's a reasonable assumption of casual privacy, and then there's something I saw many years ago on a Howie Mandel special:
A guy from the audience said something and caught Howie's attention. Howie addressed him directly, asking him to stand up, the guy refused. Howie asked why, the guy said "I don't want people staring at me."
Howie replied "You've got your shirt unbuttoned down to your [willy] and you don't want people staring at you!?!"
While you're correct in your assertion that what lies in someone else's mind is on them, I can safely say that more than once when younger I encountered evening wear in mixed social situations that left NOTHING to the imagination and saw guys rebuffed with comments like "I can wear what I want, it doesn't mean I want some jerk drooling all over me."
I suspect this "right" to wear what one wants while insisting attention is NOT the intent is the reason as many women as men roll their eyes and s--- shame when situations are encountered.
I realize, even saying this, that there are men out there who would insist a nun was "asking for it"; but that's a grievous minority, not the widespread social epidemic we hear about. It obviously varies from crowd to crowd, and this is no longer the 80s or 90s, let alone the 70s.
Sorry, it doesn't matter what a person is or is not wearing, there are standards of conduct that go beyond that. A person may have no problem with attention, but that doesn't mean a man is entitled to say crass things, or that he has an increased chance of getting sex with her and a right to be upset if she doesn't want to, or that he has the right to touch her uninvited.
As mentioned before, I attend parties on almost a weekly basis at a private club for alternative lifestyles. Lots of nudity, my own included, goes on there. Yet no sex, for the most part, the owner told me that except for swinger night, she has only seen a couple engage in sex at one of those parties once in a great many years. There is a heavyset man there, whom I have befriended. His desires, his build, and where he lives make the odds of him finding what he seeks in a relationship less than awesome, but he's still getting out there. He said he wants to go into the room and watch all the naked ladies, but is afraid to be "that creepy guy." I told him, none of us would be doing this, in this place, if watching were unwelcome. He isn't creepy just for being there watching. There is nothing threatening about him...that's where "creepy" comes in. He understands the consent culture of the place very well. Nothing happens if all involved parties don't fully consent. No amount of nudity is an invitation otherwise, and no man there acts as though he is entitled to open his mouth and say things, or put his hands on anyone in uninvited ways. We. All. Know. Better.
I really often think that vanilla folk could learn a lot from BDSM folk. But that's a drum I bang pretty frequently these days.
Now someone dressing in a way that is completely inappropriate to the setting and standing out as such, is a different matter entirely. One does not wear revealing clubwear to work in an office. And I hated when dorm kids wore pajamas to class at the business college I attended years ago.
But the thing is we live in a very strange time and a very unique situation in the USA. I personally believe that a time is coming soon where women will need to be literally protected. Lots and lots of pissed off people around the world and in our own country.
So then the question becomes do you want to treat with contempt the very men that are there to protect you, because when push comes to shove you will need protection unless you are the one in a million woman who is some kind of GI jane and keep your side arm and rifle clean and train with it periodicly.
It basicly boils down to social accountability, do you think your boyfriend, husband what have you is going to appreciate having to get into fights because you want to dress scantily.
The issue is now women can do what they want and there is really little to no real tangible consequences unless you were to go into a really rough area. I personally believe that is going to change soon.
To many people around the world and in our own country are treated with contempt and marginalized for something to not break loose and cause social disorder that will be more than a blurb on TV that is contained by the end of the weekend.
The men in our nation that have been marginalized and treated with contempt are not likely to stand up and defend anyone. Maybe I am wrong and maybe I need to put a tin foil hat on but with the things I see going on around the world, I don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
And really it's my opinion that all dress codes aside, what thoughts are in another person's head just are not my problem.
I cover myself with clothing in public out of respect for other people in general, and try not to act in ways that are overtly bothersome to those around me.
I use common sense about my own safety (the counting 100's in the hood thing) it's more a matter of situational awareness than what I'm wearing. If I'm in a place where it wouldn't be SAFE for me to have skin revealed because I might be attacked, then maybe I shouldn't be there at all in that time. It's the situation that's unsafe, not the fact that someone sees me wearing this or that and has nasty intentions towards me.
But to say that a woman's immodest clothing choices caused "you" (general you meaning whatever man...or woman!...) to think sinful thoughts, and therefore they should take responsibility for your spiritual damage and be punished for your inability to avert your eyes and act civilized...that is STUPID. It's an excuse for not only laziness and entitlement, but abdication of personal accountability. Does every man going into a strip joint start attacking women he sees? Nope. Do nudist women have to carry a spray bottle to get nudist men off their legs as though they were mindless animals? I don't think so, no.
At least as much as women need to have ownership of being mindful of their own safety, men also need to take ownership for the way they react to external stimuli. But various religious institutions and conservative/traditional cultures have preached the opposite forever. Women must be protected by men, men aren't responsible for temptation if an immodest woman or one of loose virtue were around. Eff that.
Are you from Europe? I hope things are not like this in Switzerland, Germany, Hungary or Russia (places I would like to visit). I have heard there is some weird stuff in Germany but that men are not nearly treated with as much contempt or marginalized as they are in the USA or other places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
Sorry, it doesn't matter what a person is or is not wearing, there are standards of conduct that go beyond that. A person may have no problem with attention, but that doesn't mean a man is entitled to say crass things, or that he has an increased chance of getting sex with her and a right to be upset if she doesn't want to, or that he has the right to touch her uninvited.
As mentioned before, I attend parties on almost a weekly basis at a private club for alternative lifestyles. Lots of nudity, my own included, goes on there. Yet no sex, for the most part, the owner told me that except for swinger night, she has only seen a couple engage in sex at one of those parties once in a great many years. There is a heavyset man there, whom I have befriended. His desires, his build, and where he lives make the odds of him finding what he seeks in a relationship less than awesome, but he's still getting out there. He said he wants to go into the room and watch all the naked ladies, but is afraid to be "that creepy guy." I told him, none of us would be doing this, in this place, if watching were unwelcome. He isn't creepy just for being there watching. There is nothing threatening about him...that's where "creepy" comes in. He understands the consent culture of the place very well. Nothing happens if all involved parties don't fully consent. No amount of nudity is an invitation otherwise, and no man there acts as though he is entitled to open his mouth and say things, or put his hands on anyone in uninvited ways. We. All. Know. Better.
I really often think that vanilla folk could learn a lot from BDSM folk. But that's a drum I bang pretty frequently these days.
Now someone dressing in a way that is completely inappropriate to the setting and standing out as such, is a different matter entirely. One does not wear revealing clubwear to work in an office. And I hated when dorm kids wore pajamas to class at the business college I attended years ago.
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.
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.
