Re: Decline of marriage and upholding social contracts BOTH inevitable


"Lost" <lostagain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4491d0e6$0$16329$892e7fe2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"pandora" <pandora@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Lost" <lostagain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4490c3fb$0$16372$892e7fe2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"pandora" <pandora@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Lost" <lostagain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4490900d$0$12167$892e7fe2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"pandora" <pandora@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150300944.362982.171740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ken Chaddock wrote:
pandora wrote:
"Viking" <noway@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bk3u82t7uoo8t8714e4f93iv6f1l9loubn@xxxxxxxxxx

(edit)

No, his comment, while a tad bit caustic, was "right on the
money"
as
a
fair analogy of Parg's (I still tend to refer to her by her
well
loved
formed identity) "theory" on "implied contracts" where she
stated
that
not only are "implied contracts" enforceable but that they can
arise
when the "parties" to those "contracts" have absolutely no
knowledge
of
or have explicitly refuted the terms which are being
"implied"...Viking
just showed by extreme example how ridiculous Parg's
"understanding"
of
the law is...
If she were to read up on her own (former) state's legal
history
she
would see that in Marvin and Marvin II the law was solidified
to
the
extent that while there sometimes ARE implied contracts in
these
circumstances, the implied contract has to be proven and the
plaintiff
has to show that there was an AGREEMENT to the effect between
the
cohabiting partners...and further, that the Martin cases are
quite
widely cited precedents in and outside of California...

Again, I'm A-ok with the EVOLUTION of the law in Mv.M. There it
was
held that the woman was ENTITLED to rehabilitative pay, and it's
just
one more step to enforce the social implied contract. When you
consider how laws evolve, this is the way. For example, before
ending
slavery, there were many laws on the books regarding "freedmen"
who
were slave at one time. The contract, or lack of contract,
between
intimate partners is already proven by the manner in which they
live.
And I have already detailed some of those lifestyles on this
thread.

Agreed... Who ever thought (thought?) that implied contracts should
or
would
not be proved? Easily enough done by the behaviors of the
individuals
involved. What? HE didn't want her to stay home with the kids for
10
years? Well, why did he wait so long to do anything about it?

SHE didn't want to be 'abused' for 10 years? Well, why did she wait
so
long to do anything about it?

I concur. The leaving should happen immediately the abuse occurs.
Staying
merely implies, I believe, that one is fine with the abuse. Of
course,
now
and then, the abuse escalates.

I agree with your concurrence.

Oh. My. God. Hell has at last frozen over. The end of global
warming
is at hand.
:-)

Taking another case: If it takes her 10 years to shoot him while he
sleeps, why should we believe she wasn't a consenting party to the
'abuse' that we now hear about for the first time?

Exactly. If she hasn't even told the postman about it, I would tend
to
not
believe her (or him) at all.

Also agreed.

Wheeee!

She was afraid, maybe? Are men not allowed to be afraid? Are men not
allowed to be afraid of losing their children and their home and
their
future earnings?

Possibly, but then these things should be discussed up front BEFORE
any
children arrive on the scene. Who is going to do what and when and
where.

Margey, I love dancing with you but you appear to be stepping my
steps.

I'm terribly sorry. I never did learn to let the guy lead. :-)

Besides, how does a man force his wife to get a job? He can't refuse
to feed, clothe and house her. He can't remonstrate with her (that's
abuse). He's powerless if she wants to stay at home all day. She, on
the other hand, can demand that he gets a job or gets out.

He can do the same, although these sorts of things should be discussed
before there is even any marriage or living together, don't you think?
I
know that when I was first married, the *deal* was that I would get a
job
to
support us since he was a graduate student with not much money. I
did.
I
would have expected him to throw my ass to the curb if I didn't live
up
to
that agreement and immediately, not several years later. If I hadn't
gotten
a job right away, we would have starved.

All right,that's enough. Who are you and what have you done with our
Margey?

It is I and always was. Perhaps you just misjudged me in the past.

Impossible.

Nothing is impossible. :-)

Perhaps hanging out in soc.men has improved your
character. I approve of the improvement.

But I haven't been hanging out in soc.men for quite a while. I only
recently returned. But I thank you for your approval. Perhaps life has
just tempered my comments and so my opinions *seem* to have changed, to you.
They haven't, really. I always believed (and still do) in treating men and
women fairly.

Marg

--
This is soc.men, we know better. -- Michael Snyder


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Decline of marriage and upholding social contracts BOTH inevitable
    ... I'm A-ok with the EVOLUTION of the law in Mv.M. ... I concur. ... Margey, I love dancing with you but you appear to be stepping my ... But I haven't been hanging out in soc.men for quite a while. ...
    (soc.men)
  • You Bitter Boys Cant Even Abuse In India Now!
    ... given protection and compensation from abuse endured in their own homes ... The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 will recognize ... the new law meant that marital rape could now be an offence. ... "It's going to orient women to stand up for their own rights and take ...
    (soc.men)