Couple.Divorce()

[Anna Jayne Metcalfe]

Hun divorce isn't easy believe me. I thought I'd found my soulmate and I was wrong. With hindsight it was so obvious - but not to us. Now it's happened friends have told me they saw it coming long ago. Pressure from family to get married and have kids only made this outcome ultimately more likely. I miss her, but I can't go back. I can't be someone else anymore. :(( Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

[Lost User]

Paul Watson wrote: What do you attribute the spiralling divorce rate in modern society to? Too many people are spoilt and self centred. They are unable and/or unwilling to play a little give and take so the relationship can work. It seems to be getting worse with every year that passes now. I don't get it. I'm 34 and coming up on 12 years of marriage. Shit is pretty fucking rocky from a financial view. If I was one of the spineless masses out there I would have already run. I think too many people dive in head first without any idea what they are getting themselves into. Then just go fuck it, time for a divorce. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002

[Jon Newman]

If there was adequate grounds for a divorce, it should mean that the marriage was far worse than the split up, otherwise you would not bother. I know retrospectivly, it was hard (and I can't say i've been through it myself), but if people knew how hard it was to go through it, they might not think of it as some paperwork, and what it is, the traumatic 'un-vowing'. I can only imagine how hard it would be to say to myself "I'm sorry, but the vows I made were wrong", it would make me feel stupid (if thats the right word) for making them in the first place because you would think twice before vowing/promising anything in the future. Sorry if I come over as "Tough shit your divorced, you should have thought about this earlier" I don't mean too, I know there are cases where its for the best and can work out well, and I truly symathise with you. One thing I reaqlly don't agree with is splitting when you have young children, the parents should make every effort to stay together until the child has left home. I know, my uncle is doing this, him and his wife are waiting untill the kids are grown up and leaving home before they decide to do anything. Once again it brings up the saying "Better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all", I have no 'real' say in the matter as I have never been in love and can't say that anyone has ever returned the favour. So losing someone like that would be beyond my comprehension. My £1.52......

---

"How long has the "Quote Selected Text" been around???"
- Marc Clifton, Lounge 4 Mar '03
"But a fresh install - it's like having clean sheets"
- Chris Maunder Lounge 3 Mar '03

---

Jonathan 'nonny' Newman
Web Designer, Programmer, Lover, Visionary Leader... Homepage [www.nonny.com] [^]

[Steven Hicks n 1]

Nitron wrote: Lack of religion; not letting God into your relationship. Good point.. you might want to have your flame resistant jacket on though ;). -Steven

CPA

CodeProjectAddict

By reading this message you are held fully responsible for any of the mispelln's or grammer, issues, found on, codeproject.com.

For those who were wondering, actual (Linux) Penguins were harmed in creating this message.

Visit Ltpb.8m.com
404Browser (Efficient, Fast, Secure Web Browser): 404Browser.com

[Nitron]

Steven Hicks wrote: Good point.. you might want to have your flame resistant jacket on though . It's starting to melt through ;P (See the thread above) - Nitron

---

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

[Anna Jayne Metcalfe]

I know hun it just hurts so much to see people discussing something that's so painful to me at the moment. Although Karen asked me for a divorce in Christmas 2001, I still have the Valentine's card she gave me the following February and reading it makes me cry every time. The truth is that despite all the anger and stress of the last year we still love each other (though she won't admit it I can see it and so can others) but we couldn't live together any longer. She couldn't cope with my transition, and I couldn't stay as I was once I accepted how I felt. Believe me, I tried. In the end my kids were suffering because of the conflict between Karen and I so leaving was really the only option. I miss them like crazy. :(( I would give almost anything not to have been born this way, but I have been and now the best thing I can do is put my life back together and try to help others as best I can. The worst thing is that talking to others I find my story is so very common. It's my hope that as society becomes more enlightened more dysphorics will come forward for treatment at a younger age - before they start families. The tragedy then of course is that there's no prospect of medical science being able to give us the ability to carry children for many years to come. For the trans-men out there, their chances of fathering a child are even more remote. Until that happens, we'll never have much prospect of a "normal" life. :( Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

[Anna Jayne Metcalfe]

Too true. :( Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

[Paul Watson]

David Wulff wrote: People certainly don't seem to want to put the effort into life anymore. I disagree. I am realising more and more that what we see is change is more a case of improved communication and awareness of a greater human population. In other words 200 years ago the percentage of lazy buggers and weak fools was just as great as today. The only difference is back then you only knew about the ones in your village and the hamlet down the river. So you assumed that it was just your lame ass village. Now though we see all villages are the same.

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

[Debs 0]

I'm of the opinion that human beings are not basically biologically-speaking monogamous; we just turn out to be (sometimes) as a result of social conditioning and expectations, depending on an accident of where we live and who we meet. So it's hardly surprising that if such social constraints are loosened that some take advantage of it. Debbie

[Debs 0]

Jeremy Falcon wrote: They are trying to mold the person (aka control), but they don’t think they are controlling. That’s the key point to remember! They don’t think they are! I can't really argue with you here, as clearly you are under the impression that, as a woman, I am really not at all in tune with my needs or wants and that my conscious has no idea as to what I really am doing. :confused: Ah well, I'll give it a crack anyway, :wtf:, because I'd hate to think that some poor sap would try to be controlling to win the woman of his dreams based on the gospel according to you. :eek: How on earth can you be pigeon-hole women in such a fashion? I know women who do genuinely like to control, and men that like to be controlled. Likewise I know couples where that role is reversed, and they are both genuinely happy with the circumstances. There are also many, many partnerships that have a more equal footing, and the power exchange invariably shifts in subtle circumstances depending upon the individual's abilities and desires. But it is an INDIVIDUAL thing. Sure, you can generalise on gender, but it is all pretty meaningless when it comes down to an individual, and to say that " it tends to hold true in damn near every case" is maybe the case for you, based on your (rather biased) perception, but not for me, and I'm not such a statistical abbheration, well, not based on the groups I mix with anyway. Debbie

[Jeremy Falcon]

You're a shining example of the women mentality. For one, you're taking this way too damn emotionally and personally. But, women (and girly guys) lean towards emotion while men leans towards logic - that's just life. Debs wrote: How on earth can you be pigeon-hole women in such a fashion? Tell me, where did I belittle women? If you think that's the case, you should read my other posts on CP where I refer to them as mainly bitches. However, in THIS post, I simply state that women think differently - not worse, not better. Any implications on that matter were something that you created in your head. Debs wrote: I know women who do genuinely like to control, and men that like to be controlled. Likewise I know couples where that role is reversed, and they are both genuinely happy with the circumstances. And the person in control never really fantasizes about the person they're controlling, now do they? Tell me, did you even read my post? Debs wrote: There are also many, many partnerships that have a more equal footing, and the power exchange invariably shifts in subtle circumstances depending upon the individual's abilities and desires. Bullshit! That's only what they let you see. Didn't you ever keep any secrets with your significant other(s) that you didn't want the world knowing - even a good friend? I sure as hell know every women I get involved with that opens up doesn't want me leaking the "secret" info. Debs wrote: but not for me, and I'm not such a statistical abbheration, well, not based on the groups I mix with anyway. So tell me, in your past or current relationship(s), who broke up with whom and/or who makes the most decisions? And, don't give me the "it shifts back and forth" crap, be LOGICAL and OBJECTIVE and think about it. Jeremy Falcon

[Debs 0]

Jeremy Falcon wrote: You're a shining example of the women mentality. Your first sentence pretty much means that there is little point in my responding to someone who has such pre-conceptions, so I'm not about to enter into a protracted debate. I have better things to do. I am in what I see as a very equal long term relationship with a man that I fancy the pants off, and no, I do NOT want to be controlled by him, nor do I want to control him. I like being on an equal footing, thank you very much. Incidentally, I did not say that you were belittling women in my post, read it again, why don't you? I was trying to say that it was mis-leading to mass-categorise individuals simply by gender to have specific personality categoristics, as you appeared to be doing. All your quasi-psychological analysis regarding sexual dynamics was neither objective nor logical. Debbie

[Jeremy Falcon]

Debs wrote: Incidentally, I did not say that you were belittling women in my post, read it again, why don't you? Actually, my interpretation was on the grounds of my misunderstanding of the term "pigeon-hole." I managed to look it up, however. Now, to more clearly identify my standpoint... It is extremely scientific and logical to classify aspects of genders and species. Scientists do it all the time with living animals and plants alike. Like a preying mantis for example will kill the male after mating. That's something that only belongs to the female. The males do not have the need to perform this action. Plenty of diverse idiosyncrasies exist in humans as well (perhaps more so because we are complex creatures) and can be easily classified - whether you choose to believe this or not. Debs wrote: All your quasi-psychological analysis regarding sexual dynamics was neither objective nor logical. For one, you are not aware of my complete deductions and analyses regarding the human mind and psyche. Nor do I care to explain them all to such a closed-minded person. For two, your statement presents absolutely nothing but your OPINION that happens to conflict with mine simply because it speaks of your gender. You got your ego hurt and responded to defend yourself without giving it any real logical thought in the first place. No real validity came about. You simply wanted to say, "I'm a chick and I don't like what your saying." Get real. For three, you still aren't thinking on a deep enough level to understand what I present. Stop looking at the surface and taking things at face value. For four, as far as quasi, get real. I know psychology better than programming, and I'm a damn fine programmer. :) I've had that crap shoved down my through since birth because my mother took it in college, my sister did too, and I've studied it myself. Debs wrote: I do NOT want to be controlled by him I never meant control in the pretext of him telling you when to take a piss, per sé. Like I said, don't take everything at face value. But, the control is there. Where do you think the term "honey-dos" came from? Debs wrote: I am in what I see as a very equal long term relationship with a man that I fancy the pants off So basically, you're telling me that he would be willing to dump you before you would be willing to dump him. Not to say you couldn't, but if you're so head-over-heels

[Debs 0]

My original quote regarding having better things to do was than to argue with people who quote rhetoric yet are unwilling to enter into a reasoned debate. I'm happy to explain my stance as long as I think you're not a complete bigot and I'm banging my head against a brick wall. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, unless you prove otherwise :) Jeremy Falcon wrote: It is extremely scientific and logical to classify aspects of genders and species. Of course. You can easily categorise males and females (human, praying mantis, even plants!) according to biological differences. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Plenty of diverse idiosyncrasies exist in humans as well (perhaps more so because we are complex creatures) and can be easily classified - whether you choose to believe this or not. I do believe that people are very diverse, in fact I think that women (and men) are far more diverse than your post gave them credit for. I don't think that people can be classified so easily by gender for personality traits as easily as people seem to want to attempt to do it. Sure you can put people into personality types based upon their genders, but it's the sweeping generalisations that I find so annoying. Jeremy Falcon wrote: For two, your statement presents absolutely nothing but your OPINION that happens to conflict with mine simply because it speaks of your gender. My posts always represent my opinion, as do yours. I would disagree with you equally had you tried to categorise all males as, say, insensitive, agressive, whatever. Jeremy Falcon wrote: But, the control is there. Where do you think the term "honey-dos" came from? No idea, it's not a term I'm familiar with, and I didn't think you meant complete dictatorship in your original post either. Jeremy Falcon wrote: So basically, you're telling me that he would be willing to dump you before you would be willing to dump him. Not to say you couldn't, but if you're so head-over-heels for him then you're not as good for his ego; he's good for your ego. That's something you wouldn't normally let go of so quickly. No, I wasn;t saying that, where did you get that idea from? I am very much in love with him and find him very, very attractive (i.e. fancy the pants off), as does he me, or he's putting on a very good act ;), and yet he doesn't control me, nor I him. We are both of the type that just

[Jeremy Falcon]

Debs wrote: I'm happy to explain my stance as long as I think you're not a complete bigot and I'm banging my head against a brick wall. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, unless you prove otherwise How interesting it is to note that I can say the exact same thing about you. Debs wrote: I do believe that people are very diverse, in fact I think that women (and men) are far more diverse than your post gave them credit for. You still haven't even come close to discussing my original point. I'm not talking about diversity and personality, per sé. I'm referring to gender (not really gender, but feminine and masculine) issues that have prevalent, noticeable, and distinct traits that are specific with each. For instance, how many macho, testosterone-laden men do you think care about their nails? Same thing with a manly chick, she may not care about her nails as much as a feminine chick. The psychology behind this (like social and peer pressure) why some still might do this but not care as much I'll save for another day, but one thing remains true, there are certain characteristics that go along with being masculine and there are certain characteristics that go along with being feminine (and this goes for mental attributes as well as physical). That was my whole point all along. You're a chick, so you should know. I was telling Paul essentially this. FEMININE women don't want a sissy guy, maybe a butch or dyke (no offense to lesbos, just conveying a point), but not a "girlie" type chick. Hell, even some gay guys want manly men. If you feel you don't need a man's man, then I bet you've noticed at least in some point in your life that some chicks are just too "girlie" for your liking. Now, on the other side. Masculine is attracted to feminine (as I stated above, so do not read as in guy to girl) - laws of nature. I'm a bigger than average guy (not fat; big) and semi-macho (when I need to be), and I don't want a chick that's like that either physically or mentally. So, I can attest to the opposite side of this personally. Debs wrote: it's not a term I'm familiar with Basically, it's a term meaning to ask your significant other to do a chore or job or whatever for whomever, but usually yourself. As in, "Honey, could you do this for me?" By definition, it can go either way with either individual asking the other for a "favor", but in practice the chick usually gives the guy the honey-do