Marriage with time limit

[Julian]

Hi
I read this description of time limited marriage, it sounds like a
interesting idea, anyone knows more about this? is it true?
Related link:
http://www.gentlemenscafe.com/forum/...sp?TID=14&PN=1

[Jack C Lipton]

Julian wrote:

I read this description of time limited marriage, it sounds like a interesting idea, anyone knows more about this? is it true? Related link: http://www.gentlemenscafe.com/forum/...sp?TID=14&PN=1

I've not read the link; I've seen "Gentlemen's Clubs"
along US 19 and realize that very few "gentlemen"
could actually be found in them.

Anyway...

It's been argued that a problem with marriage is
that both parties-- men and women-- will tend to
develop a sense of "entitlement" which will cut
into the amount of work they're willing to put
into the marital relationship.

If both partners care about each other it seems
a marriage will recover when it is threatened.

There's no simple answer.

Like Bruce Schneier's comments about most (if not
all) of the post-9/11 security efforts (which he
finds to be poorly thought out) the questions
one needs to ask START WITH:

What problem does this "solution" really address?

Which seques directly to:

What problem needs to be solved?

And, of course, who benefits? And why? And why
can't *both* parties benefit?

We get a lot of misgynist postings here, BTW, with
all kinds of "solutions"... but the proposed
solutions don't resolve things, they just make
things *worse*... all because there's a problem
with finding consensus on the problems they think
exist.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Those people most incapable (or unwilling) to see themselves as being
sent to Hell are those most likely to become permanent residents. - me

[Jack C Lipton]

Julian wrote:

I read this description of time limited marriage, it sounds like a interesting idea, anyone knows more about this? is it true? Related link: http://www.gentlemenscafe.com/forum/...sp?TID=14&PN=1

I've not read the link; I've seen "Gentlemen's Clubs"
along US 19 and realize that very few "gentlemen"
could actually be found in them.

Anyway...

It's been argued that a problem with marriage is
that both parties-- men and women-- will tend to
develop a sense of "entitlement" which will cut
into the amount of work they're willing to put
into the marital relationship.

If both partners care about each other it seems
a marriage will recover when it is threatened.

There's no simple answer.

Like Bruce Schneier's comments about most (if not
all) of the post-9/11 security efforts (which he
finds to be poorly thought out) the questions
one needs to ask START WITH:

What problem does this "solution" really address?

Which seques directly to:

What problem needs to be solved?

And, of course, who benefits? And why? And why
can't *both* parties benefit?

We get a lot of misgynist postings here, BTW, with
all kinds of "solutions"... but the proposed
solutions don't resolve things, they just make
things *worse*... all because there's a problem
with finding consensus on the problems they think
exist.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Those people most incapable (or unwilling) to see themselves as being
sent to Hell are those most likely to become permanent residents. - me

[Doug Laidlaw]

Jack C Lipton wrote:

Julian wrote:

I've not read the link; I've seen "Gentlemen's Clubs" along US 19 and realize that very few "gentlemen" could actually be found in them. Anyway... It's been argued that a problem with marriage is that both parties-- men and women-- will tend to develop a sense of "entitlement" which will cut into the amount of work they're willing to put into the marital relationship. If both partners care about each other it seems a marriage will recover when it is threatened. There's no simple answer. Like Bruce Schneier's comments about most (if not all) of the post-9/11 security efforts (which he finds to be poorly thought out) the questions one needs to ask START WITH: What problem does this "solution" really address? Which seques directly to: What problem needs to be solved? And, of course, who benefits? And why? And why can't *both* parties benefit? We get a lot of misgynist postings here, BTW, with all kinds of "solutions"... but the proposed solutions don't resolve things, they just make things *worse*... all because there's a problem with finding consensus on the problems they think exist.

Both sides need to see the problem areas as being the same.

I have often wondered about it. Our driver licences are renewable every 10
years. What about marriage licences? But the couples want permanence, as
other postings on that page point out. The children need parents with
commitment to each other - and to them.

The page says that it is the Muslims who have a temporary marriage. My
eldest and her husband went through Arab territory on their way to England.
Some local offered Tim "many camels" for Fiona. It is the family joke.
But it is a different issue - purchase of the bride.

(Incidentally, it is the second incident that shows how Fi's qualities are
seen so early. The first time was when as a lawyer, I got an agent to
represent her on a careless driving charge in another town. He noticed
that she was pretty special and commented to me over the phone, after
meeting her only once. She is naturally very good at personal
relationships. If I was the Arab, I would think that she was worth many
camels as well. But I am biased.)

I am going to cancel my email account above. It gets only spam. I am
looking at ways to hide my new one.

Doug L.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
"Many a good hanging prevents a bad marriage."
- Shakespeare (Twelfth Night.)

[Doug Laidlaw]

Jack C Lipton wrote:

Julian wrote:

I've not read the link; I've seen "Gentlemen's Clubs" along US 19 and realize that very few "gentlemen" could actually be found in them. Anyway... It's been argued that a problem with marriage is that both parties-- men and women-- will tend to develop a sense of "entitlement" which will cut into the amount of work they're willing to put into the marital relationship. If both partners care about each other it seems a marriage will recover when it is threatened. There's no simple answer. Like Bruce Schneier's comments about most (if not all) of the post-9/11 security efforts (which he finds to be poorly thought out) the questions one needs to ask START WITH: What problem does this "solution" really address? Which seques directly to: What problem needs to be solved? And, of course, who benefits? And why? And why can't *both* parties benefit? We get a lot of misgynist postings here, BTW, with all kinds of "solutions"... but the proposed solutions don't resolve things, they just make things *worse*... all because there's a problem with finding consensus on the problems they think exist.

Both sides need to see the problem areas as being the same.

I have often wondered about it. Our driver licences are renewable every 10
years. What about marriage licences? But the couples want permanence, as
other postings on that page point out. The children need parents with
commitment to each other - and to them.

The page says that it is the Muslims who have a temporary marriage. My
eldest and her husband went through Arab territory on their way to England.
Some local offered Tim "many camels" for Fiona. It is the family joke.
But it is a different issue - purchase of the bride.

(Incidentally, it is the second incident that shows how Fi's qualities are
seen so early. The first time was when as a lawyer, I got an agent to
represent her on a careless driving charge in another town. He noticed
that she was pretty special and commented to me over the phone, after
meeting her only once. She is naturally very good at personal
relationships. If I was the Arab, I would think that she was worth many
camels as well. But I am biased.)

I am going to cancel my email account above. It gets only spam. I am
looking at ways to hide my new one.

Doug L.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
"Many a good hanging prevents a bad marriage."
- Shakespeare (Twelfth Night.)

[Tai]

Doug Laidlaw wrote:

I am going to cancel my email account above. It gets only spam. I am looking at ways to hide my new one.

Doug, I think it's a good idea *not* to use your ISP email address for
usenet posting. You might consider adopting a netnym, as well. Let me know
if you want a gmail account, I have plenty of invitations left.

By the way, do you have a professional (if retired) opinion on what the
Chappelle Corby verdict will be on Friday? Despite the media's presention of
the evidence I'll be very surprised if she's not found guilty.

Tai

[Tai]

Doug Laidlaw wrote:

I am going to cancel my email account above. It gets only spam. I am looking at ways to hide my new one.

Doug, I think it's a good idea *not* to use your ISP email address for
usenet posting. You might consider adopting a netnym, as well. Let me know
if you want a gmail account, I have plenty of invitations left.

By the way, do you have a professional (if retired) opinion on what the
Chappelle Corby verdict will be on Friday? Despite the media's presention of
the evidence I'll be very surprised if she's not found guilty.

Tai

[Doug Laidlaw]

Tai wrote:

Doug Laidlaw wrote:

Doug, I think it's a good idea *not* to use your ISP email address for usenet posting. You might consider adopting a netnym, as well. Let me know if you want a gmail account, I have plenty of invitations left. By the way, do you have a professional (if retired) opinion on what the Chappelle Corby verdict will be on Friday? Despite the media's presention of the evidence I'll be very surprised if she's not found guilty. Tai

Yes, I will munge my new address, Tai

I haven't been following Chapelle's case closely. I thought that she had
already been found guilty, and only the question of penalty remained to be
determined. I came in to the middle of a TV interview with some woman over
there who said that they hadn't told Chappelle about the letter from the
Gobvernment, because the letter was "useless."

I would say that the whole idea of having the stuff in the top of her bag,
in free view, defies credulity. Real traffickers make at least some
attempt to conceal it. But I attended a training session for Lions Youth
Exchange some years back. They were told "If drugs are found in your bag,
you wear it, so don't hold anyone else's bag for them."

I don't know who has the burden of proof in these cases. In regulatory
cases, like adulterated food, the defendant has to provide the explanation
and if it isn't convincing, he is guilty. In a case as serious as this,
that would be uncommon, but the drug trafficking problem is so bad, and
detection so inadequate, that they have made the law very harsh to
compensate. Part of the reason why penalties have been reduced over time
is the higher chance of conviction. As the chances of getting through go
down, so the stakes are lowered.

Since the case turns purely on who is believed, there would be no real hope
in an appeal.

Doug L.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
Black as the devil, hot as hell,
Pure as an angel, sweet as love.
-- Talleyrand's recipe for coffee.

[Doug Laidlaw]

Tai wrote:

Doug Laidlaw wrote:

Doug, I think it's a good idea *not* to use your ISP email address for usenet posting. You might consider adopting a netnym, as well. Let me know if you want a gmail account, I have plenty of invitations left. By the way, do you have a professional (if retired) opinion on what the Chappelle Corby verdict will be on Friday? Despite the media's presention of the evidence I'll be very surprised if she's not found guilty. Tai

Yes, I will munge my new address, Tai

I haven't been following Chapelle's case closely. I thought that she had
already been found guilty, and only the question of penalty remained to be
determined. I came in to the middle of a TV interview with some woman over
there who said that they hadn't told Chappelle about the letter from the
Gobvernment, because the letter was "useless."

I would say that the whole idea of having the stuff in the top of her bag,
in free view, defies credulity. Real traffickers make at least some
attempt to conceal it. But I attended a training session for Lions Youth
Exchange some years back. They were told "If drugs are found in your bag,
you wear it, so don't hold anyone else's bag for them."

I don't know who has the burden of proof in these cases. In regulatory
cases, like adulterated food, the defendant has to provide the explanation
and if it isn't convincing, he is guilty. In a case as serious as this,
that would be uncommon, but the drug trafficking problem is so bad, and
detection so inadequate, that they have made the law very harsh to
compensate. Part of the reason why penalties have been reduced over time
is the higher chance of conviction. As the chances of getting through go
down, so the stakes are lowered.

Since the case turns purely on who is believed, there would be no real hope
in an appeal.

Doug L.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
Black as the devil, hot as hell,
Pure as an angel, sweet as love.
-- Talleyrand's recipe for coffee.

[S.Taylor]

I read it...

Note that the man has to pay her after 40 days. Thus, the marriage is
legal prositution, which is the same as happens in the USA. The
difference is that in America, the feminist legal system will ensure the
man pays the woman after he is married.

The dowry being paid at the end, not at the front, of the marriage
experience in modern day America.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 23 May 2005 22:23:17 GMT, "Julian"
<webmaster@gentlemenworld.com> wrote:

HiI read this description of time limited marriage, it sounds like ainteresting idea, anyone knows more about this? is it true?Related link:http://www.gentlemenscafe.com/forum/...sp?TID=14&PN=1

[S.Taylor]

I read it...

Note that the man has to pay her after 40 days. Thus, the marriage is
legal prositution, which is the same as happens in the USA. The
difference is that in America, the feminist legal system will ensure the
man pays the woman after he is married.

The dowry being paid at the end, not at the front, of the marriage
experience in modern day America.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 23 May 2005 22:23:17 GMT, "Julian"
<webmaster@gentlemenworld.com> wrote:

HiI read this description of time limited marriage, it sounds like ainteresting idea, anyone knows more about this? is it true?Related link:http://www.gentlemenscafe.com/forum/...sp?TID=14&PN=1

[A man]

I think it's a bad idea because children will be produced, and then their
fathers will go away, which is extremely disruptive to the kids, not just
socially but psychologically too. My parents had a bitter divorce when I was
5 so I went through it all. I could safely say that out of all my friends
divorces I knew of, my parent's divorce was one of the worst.

I mean my parents fought even more after they got divorced because my mom
would not let my dad exercise his visitation rights.

--
Sig: Say no to fixed width HTML tables. They look terrible in most browsers.

[A man]

I think it's a bad idea because children will be produced, and then their
fathers will go away, which is extremely disruptive to the kids, not just
socially but psychologically too. My parents had a bitter divorce when I was
5 so I went through it all. I could safely say that out of all my friends
divorces I knew of, my parent's divorce was one of the worst.

I mean my parents fought even more after they got divorced because my mom
would not let my dad exercise his visitation rights.

--
Sig: Say no to fixed width HTML tables. They look terrible in most browsers.