carefreewannabe:

now I understand your view better. I partly agree. but when it comes to marriage, for me, one should not only act in one own's interest but also in the interest of your spouse for whom you have taken responsibilty since you have become a family. if you go on acting selfish in marriage, it will do no good to the family. and this valid for both, men and women.
and as I am a great supporter of personal freedom, yes, let people choose their own life style. allow polygamy and allow it for everyone. but make sure, before you marry, what kind of marriage you TWO want to have. therefore, couples should sign a contract from the beginning leaving the option of polygamy open to those who agree to it and letting it out if they don't. that would be desireable.

The demand of a contract before marriage is against my philosophy. People should be free to change their minds if they want to. As a supporter of personal freedom, you should not advocate that.

Marriage as an institution has failed. It gets an F grade. Virtually all people go into it with self-interest, which is only natural.

Out of interest, if I may ask you, what do you think about fairness of Western divorce laws and your thoughts about prenuptials?

Sagamite:

The demand of a contract before marriage is against my philosophy. People should be free to change their minds if they want to. As a supporter of personal freedom, you should not advocate that.

Marriage as an institution has failed. It gets an F grade. Virtually all people go into it with self-interest, which is only natural.

Out of interest, if I may ask you, what do you think about fairness of Western divorce laws and your thoughts about prenuptials?

ok if you advocate freedom to this extand then let us make polyandry legal too so that EVERYBODY has the freedom to change their mind.
what do you mean by "Western divorce laws" 'cause they differ from country to country. however, I have not studied Western law so I'm not an expert.
prenuptials? I don'T mind. each couple decides for themselves.

carefreewannabe:

ok if you advocate freedom to this extand then let us make polyandry legal too so that EVERYBODY has the freedom to change their mind.
what do you mean by "Western divorce laws" 'cause they differ from country to country. however, I have not studied Western law so I'm not an expert.
prenuptials? I don'T mind. each couple decides for themselves.

I am not against polyandry.

When I talk about Western divorce laws, I am talking about the extreme ones (mainly US and UK) where they share assets in marriage 50-50 because they see everything made in marriage as something joint and equal contribution. No attempt is made to assess what the actual or weight of contribution is.

In some cases, they even give a ratio of 60-40, with 60 going to the parent with custody irrespective of who worked for the asset.

Do you think prenuptials should be made mandatory?

Sagamite:

I am not against polyandry.

When I talk about Western divorce laws, I am talking about the extreme ones (mainly US and UK) where they share assets in marriage 50-50 because they see everything made in marriage as something joint and equal contribution. No attempt is made to assesswhat the actual or weight of contribution is.

In some cases, they even give a ratio of 60-40, with 60 going to the parent with custody irrespective of who worked for the asset.

Do you think prenuptials should be made mandatory?

well, it is very difficult to assess who contributed how much. you can easily say who earned how much but when children are born one of the spouses stays at home, mostly women. how do you assess who contributed what when a woman stays at home to take care of the house and the children nd the man goes to work. whose work is more valuable? whose work is harder and so on. these questions are hard to answer.

No, I don't think prenuptials should be made mandatory. I think, that couples should decide for themselves.

carefreewannabe:

well, it is very difficult to assess who contributed how much. you can easily say who earned how much but when children are born one of the spouses stays at home, mostly women. how do you assess who contributed what when a woman stays at home to take care of the house and the children nd the man goes to work. whose work is more valuable? whose work is harder and so on. these questions are hard to answer.

No, I don't think prenuptials should be made mandatory. I think, that couples should decide for themselves.

So you are effectively agreeing with Western laws then?

Don't you think prenups would make it more fair, than to share things 50-50? Don't you think making it mandatory is fair?

Sagamite:

So you are effectively agreeing with Western laws then?

Don't you think prenups would make it more fair, than to share things 50-50? Don't you think making it mandatory is fair?

I didn't say I agree with Western laws 'cause I know too little about them. But I asked you some questions which you didn't answer. It is too difficult for me to decide what is just and what is not. Every case is different. And every case must be solved individually.

I think prenups could help. Don't know if they must be mandatory. Isn't it enough if every couple decides for themselves? Isn't it fair enough?

carefreewannabe:

I didn't say I agree with Western laws 'cause I know too little about them. But I asked you some questions which you didn't answer. It is too difficult for me to decide what is just and what is not. Every case is different. And every case must be solved individually.

I think prenups could help. Don't know if they must be mandatory. Isn't it enough if every couple decides for themselves? Isn't it fair enough?

Well I think your claim that it is hard to assess the individual contribution is lame that was why I parked it for the meantime. It is piss easy to assess the opportunity cost of the woman staying at home, it is not rocket science if one puts their mind to thinking about it.

A dental nurse cannot marry a millionaire and then, because she quit her job to take care of kids, be entitled to half his earnings. Her opportunity cost is not worthy of that.

Now do a quick thought and tell me what you think the solution should be.

Where are you based? How come you claim such complete ignorance about Western divorce laws?

Sagamite:

Well I think your claim that it is hard to assess the individual contribution is lame that was why I parked it for the meantime. It is piss easy to assess the opportunity cost of the woman staying at home, it is not rocket science if one puts their mind to thinking about it.

A dental nurse cannot marry a millionaire and then, because she quit her job to take care of kids, be entitled to half his earnings. Her opportunity cost is not worthy of that.

Now do a quick thought and tell me what you think the solution should be.

Where are you based? How come you claim such complete ignorance about Western divorce laws?

you have given an extreme example here. what about a man who earns an average wage and works like 8-10 hours a day. and a woman who has to raise 2-3 children and do a 24 / 7 job. she cleans the house, irons the clothes, does the laundry, cooks, wakes up at night to feed the baby or nurse the sick child, brings the children to school, picks them up and so on ans so forth. sher earns no money and she doesn't pay the bills. yet, her job is hard, maybe harder than the man's job, depending on his profession. and at the end she owes nothing 'cause she had to do the unpaid job. if her husband leaves her, she has nothing. yet, the husband will behave like the boss because he earns money.

apart from that, what if the children go to school and she goes to work too. in most cases the woman will work at home and outside of it. she will bring in money, take care of the house and the kids whereas many men will not. they go to work and when they return they expect to be catered for and behave like guests in their own house. what about theses scenarios?

anyway, different scenarios are possible. so each individual case must be solved individually.

I don't know about divorce laws 'cause I don't intend to be divorced.
but what I know is that in many cases men only pay a certain amount for their children after divorce and the woman get nothing, absolutely nothing. and it depends on their income what their children get. all they have to do, apart from that, is to take care of their children every second weekend = 2 days. they can come more often but they don't have to. mothers must do all the rest. is this fair? and just because they pay for the child, does not mean that it is enough money for the child. Western law makes mothers pay too for the children. did you know?

now imagine, the father is not rich. consequently, he doesn't pay much money for his children. still, he can work and enjoy 12 days without his children, enjoying a new relationship. the woman can't work if her children are still very young. consequently, there is not much money. and she cannot pursuit her career. she has no time to find a new partner and if so it will be more difficult for her because many men don'T like to father children from another men. and so on and so forth.

anyway,this is not a battle of sexes. I guess we can agree that life can be tough for both, men and women. even though I still believe that it is somehow harder for women.

and I still believe that it is very difficult to assess the individual contribution.

Thank goodness....I don't have a hoish husband!

x

Was Sagamite here? Oh post must be tosh. *yawns* Going through each post.

x

Depends on your Managerial Ability *And Stamina, Aint nothing wrong about it.

Maybe some cash - helps to keep things going.

Not a route I'd ply though.

carefreewannabe:

you have given an extreme example here. what about a man who earns an average wage and works like 8-10 hours a day. and a woman who has to raise 2-3 children and do a 24 / 7 job. she cleans the house, irons the clothes, does the laundry, cooks, wakes up at night to feed the baby or nurse the sick child, brings the children to school, picks them up and so on ans so forth. sher earns no money and she doesn't pay the bills. yet, her job is hard, maybe harder than the man's job, depending on his profession. and at the end she owes nothing 'cause she had to do the unpaid job. if her husband leaves her, she has nothing. yet, the husband will behave like the boss because he earns money.

apart from that, what if the children go to school and she goes to work too. in most cases the woman will work at home and outside of it. she will bring in money, take care of the house and the kids whereas many men will not. they go to work and when they return they expect to be catered for and behave like guests in their own house. what about theses scenarios?

anyway, different scenarios are possible. so each individual case must be solved individually.

I don't know about divorce laws 'cause I don't intend to be divorced.
but what I know is that in many cases men only pay a certain amount for their children after divorce and the woman get nothing, absolutely nothing. and it depends on their income what their children get. all they have to do, apart from that, is to take care of their children every second weekend = 2 days. they can come more often but they don't have to. mothers must do all the rest. is this fair? and just because they pay for the child, does not mean that it is enough money for the child. Western law makes mothers pay too for the children. did you know?

now imagine, the father is not rich. consequently, he doesn't pay much money for his children. still, he can work and enjoy 12 days without his children, enjoying a new relationship. the woman can't work if her children are still very young. consequently, there is not much money. and she cannot pursuit her career. she has no time to find a new partner and if so it will be more difficult for her because many men don'T like to father children from another men. and so on and so forth.

anyway,this is not a battle of sexes. I guess we can agree that life can be tough for both, men and women. even though I still believe that it is somehow harder for women.

The extreme example was simply an example. The question to you was to address the issue in a generic manner. That was as clear as the finest Pacific beaches.

You are now dodging to answer.

You came forth as someone that understands and is a champion of "fair". :/

But as usual majority of women only understand fair when things affects them negatively. If it is to their benefit, then the advantage to them is fair.

That was what I was trying to prove, and you did not fail me.

Don't think I was tricked for a second your position on polygamy was not about protecting women's interest. You can't deceive a man with ambrosial logical thinking. As I said:

Sagamite:
Women don't understand fair. They only understand self-advantage.

I understand women in general and I can categorically tell you that they SURELY do not understand fair and do not treat others the way they want to be treated.

Your bias was evident in your insistence on mandatory pre-marital agreement on monogamy/polygamy and your quick quip to refer to polyandry. So I decided to test the "advocacy of fairness" by our fair lady that "advocates fairness".

I have a PhD in Womantology.

Sagamite: x

See me see wahala, what isn't wrong?

Mrs..Chima:

ronkebp: See me see wahala, what isn't wrong?

You are a fake Xtian!

The Bible supports it!

x x x x

Sagamite:

The extreme example was simply an example. The question to you was to address the issue in a generic manner. That was as clear as the finest Pacific beaches.

You are now dodging to answer.

You came forth as someone that understands and is a champion of "fair". :/

But as usual majority of women only understand fair when things affects them negatively. If it is to their benefit, then the advantage to them is fair.

That was what I was trying to prove, and you did not fail me.

Don't think I was tricked for a second your position on polygamy was not about protecting women's interest. You can't deceive a man with ambrosial logical thinking. As I said:



Your bias was evident in your insistence on mandatory pre-marital agreement on monogamy/polygamy and your quick quip to refer to polyandry. So I decided to test the "advocacy of fairness" by our fair lady that "advocates fairness".

I have a PhD in Womantology.

You're being funny now.

You give extreme examples, which at the same time are superficial and don't reflect the majority of cases to show me that women are only fair when it is to benefit them. You're wrong. I never said your example was fair. I have just been trying to show you that the whole case is more complex but you have ignored other cases, which I have presented.

And yes, I advocate fairness. For everyone, regardless gender. Anything wrong with it?

carefreewannabe:

You're being funny now.

You give extreme examples, which at the same time are superficial and don't reflect the majority of cases to show me that women are only fair when it is to benefit them. You're wrong. I never said your example was fair. I have just been trying to show you that the whole case is more complex but you have ignored other cases, which I have presented.

And yes, I advocate fairness. For everyone, regardless gender. Anything wrong with it?

Well relationships are complex, it is only fair people should be able to have multiple partners if they can, my fair lady.

I dont think its ever possible for a man to love 2 women equally then it means you love one and deceive the other but you always find yourself telling them you love them which you obviously know is a lie

Floxxi: I dont think its ever possible for a man to love 2 women equally then it means you love one and deceive the other but you always find yourself telling them you love them which you obviously know is a lie

And so?

Floxxi: I dont think its ever possible for a man to love 2 women equally then it means you love one and deceive the other but you always find yourself telling them you love them which you obviously know is a lie

There's no equality anywhere dear madam, not even maternal love can inspire equal love among one's children. Equiity would standd it in good steadd though.

Sagamite:

Well relationships are complex, it is only fair people should be able to have multiple partners if they can, my fair lady.

carefreewannabe:

Out of curiosity, my fair lady, how do you think first dates between a man and a woman should be paid for?

Sagamite:

Out of curiosity, my fair lady, how do you think first dates between a man and a woman should be paid for?

I know you're trying to set a trap for me AGAIN

I'll try to be diplomatic. It depends on who invited whom

carefreewannabe:

I know you're trying to set a trap for me AGAIN

I'll try to be diplomatic. It depends on who invited whom

I knew you would know it was a trap by now, but yet you still fell for the trap.

My fair lady, your choice of answer is obviously because you know which sex would invite the other out 99% of the time.

Honestly, you are no different from majority of women. Pure selfish and "me, me, me".

Look, I don't mean that in a bad way. It is your evolutionary make-up. I am aware of it and can't hate on what is not your fault. I just manage the reality to minimise the risk to me and to maneuver things to my advantage.

Feel free to manipulate and shape guys (that pant like lapdogs to be tagged Real Men by women) to your advantage. I am not an "Real man".

Sagamite:



I knew you would know it was a trap by now, but yet you still fell for the trap.

My fair lady, your choice of answer is obviously because you know which sex would invite the other out 99% of the time.

Honestly, you are no different from majority of women. Pure selfish and "me, me, me".

Look, I don't mean that in a bad way. It is your evolutionary make-up. I am aware of it and can't hate on what is not your fault. I just manage the reality to minimise the risk to me and to maneuver things to my advantage.

Feel free to manipulate and shape guys (that pant like lapdogs to be tagged Real Men by women) to your advantage. I am not an "Real man".

look, you seem to be too intelligent to overgeneralize.
you don't know me so don't judge me, please.
I don't mind sharing. it is men who very often feel uncomfortable with the idea of a woman having the money to share or even more.

carefreewannabe:

look, you seem to be too intelligent to overgeneralize.
you don't know me so don't judge me, please.
I don't mind sharing. it is men who very often feel uncomfortable with the idea of a woman having the money to share or even more.

I am not over-generalising. I am spotting clues from pre-predictive line of questioning and making deductions.

My fair lady, I don't know where you are located but the bolded is not true. Men would not feel uncomfortable.

Sagamite:

I am not over-generalising. I am spotting clues from pre-predictive line of questioning and making deductions.

My fair lady, I don't know where you are located but the bolded is not true. Men would not feel uncomfortable.

many do. my personal experience. and many who don't will enjoy sharing the money but won't share any duties. I have already told you, once a woman has to work or is in pursuit of her career, she will do that and additionally do most if not all of the housework. she will work double as much as her spouse but will get no standing ovation. that's life, unfair huh?