Relationships

never had a relationship, dont know how to make any... do you buy girlfriends at tesco? if not then i dunno how to get one... ill try looking on amazon or something i guess

[removed by moderator]   (Sorry, couldn't resist...)

Reminder of Rule 7:

This is a hate-free zone for autistic people, their families and friends, and professionals working in the field. We do not permit sexism, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, religious intolerance, transphobia, disability hate speech, hate speech, obscenities or pornography to be posted or linked to here.

That might have been through in the Victorian era but it hasn’t been true for most of the 20th century. For most of the 20th century the child was a defacto property of the wife and she could deprive her husband of them with a divorce. 
this has only recently changed with the growing popularity of joint custody arrangements. in practice valves arrangements create considerable difficulty for the courts. when one parent wants to move out of the area and take the children with them there is usually a massive court battle over whether that should be allowed or not and there usually isn’t an obvious answer.

The only exception would be if you have older children, teenagers, Who have strong views about which parent they would prefer to live with if it becomes a choice between them. But this of course creates its own unfortunate circumstance where the children are effectively forced to choose between parents.

even when you consider that because of biological necessity the man is more likely to have a stable career than the woman, because they don’t need to take career breaks for pregnancy and childbirth. this may seem like an advantage but in a divorce proceeding The court may be inclined toward custody to the party that doesn’t have a full-time job. What so-called male ‘advantage’ give us with one hand it takes with the other.

for many men who work full time and have X wives Who dont, who have possibly remarried, The child is still likely to be treated as the de facto property of the woman.

it still is like that in every non western country. thats just the old fuedal system where the man is the dynasty head and he married his daughters off for alliances or merging of other families to strengthen and create a strong family dynasty and ensure his line and his people dont become extinct.

we got rid of that in the west, thats why the west is facing a fertility crisis and europeans will become extinct in the future..... the other non western countries still do this which is why they breed fast and spread. they are coming here and breeding here while we dont, so we will go extinct, they will take this country... and bam, when they have the country its the same system that you speak of again lol so we will have it here again and that issue is the fact without that your people dont breed and they go extinct and other people that have this system breed alot and take over and become the new majority rulers and it becomes their system.

values are bred, and the people with good values simply wont and dont want to breed.

There are things other than illegal physical compulsion or threats that can be applied to people. Powerful forces, including family expectations, financial pressure, the effect of societal norms can all come into play to ensure that people, overwhelmingly women, marry against their wishes. Even now in church weddings the bride is 'given away' by her father or other male relative to her husband. This is now 'play acting', but not all that long ago this was a reality and a daughter becoming a wife was legally exchanging one 'legal owner' for another. Unless there were a prior legal dispensation in place, the husband had unfettered access to all of his wife's property and all children of the marriage came under his sole legal control.

You have to go a long way back in the uk to find a time when forced marrage was legal. Pre christian times in fact. It was one of the first things the church and newly christian kings banned. Why do you think the church doors allways have to be left open at church weddings? To stop forced marrages that were banned under church law.

I really do not appreciate you being abusive in that manner Debbie.   You owe sperg an apology.  He EXPLICITLY said "50 years", you even included that in your quote.

Was it within the past 50 years ... what you are talking about?  No.  So you started out with a deliberately misrepresentation of what he said in order to be abusive and falsely claim he was joking about horrible stuff.

You should show the grace he previously did and apologise and express never to do it again.

Sadly, she is not.

Biology inflicts basic rules on organisms. I've been hearing some lurid stories of animals behaving badly second hand from my mates daughter this week who is doing a PHD...

Like it or not, society is rejectig basic biology and sexual mores, in favour of a newer, more egalitarian approach where what were once basic sex defined roles are now considered "fungible". 

It is my understanding that the sort of patriarchal male oppression depicted was less prevalent than Debbie thinks. 

BUT there is a "war against children" documentary that can be sought out and watched to get a wider angle picture of what is going on here in the west...

c'mon. you have got to be kidding?!

I Sperg said:

OTOH, I do know a really bad one word joke that has been played on many women now for at least 50 years...

Feminism

I wish I could transport you back to a time where you are female and owned by your husband, unable to own property, vote or work, educated or have any rights at all.

Oh, and raped every night by a man you didn't want to marry and forced to have children you don't want.

Or perhaps we could go back just 50 years as that's the time span you mentioned when at last women have access to contraception, but are still being treated as objects, owned by their husbands, regularly raped and beaten in their own home, denied the ability to do well in a career, asked if they intend to have a family when interviewed and then rejected when they say yes, institutionalised for having children out of wedlock, patronised, typecast and constrained.

And that's just the start of it.

No, but it does let out a constant high-pitched screech.

It's not really much of a bomb if it's only offended one person...

Does the F-Bomb have the time delay fuse in the back?

Sperg, I am deeply offended you would drop the f-bomb like that!  :-)

One of those few times when Although broadly speaking I agree with you Peter in most things, in practice I've found that for some people, some things are desperately unhumourous. 

I've been asked to make a reasonable adjustment to my behaviour and the reason explained to me and I find I want to make that adjustment.

OTOH, I do know a really bad one word joke that has been played on many women now for at least 50 years...

Feminism.

One of those few times when Although broadly speaking I agree with you Peter in most things, in practice I've found that for some people, some things are desperately unhumourous. 

I've been asked to make a reasonable adjustment to my behaviour and the reason explained to me and I find I want to make that adjustment.

OTOH, I do know a really bad one word joke that has been played on many women now for at least 50 years...

Feminism.

That might have been through in the Victorian era but it hasn’t been true for most of the 20th century. For most of the 20th century the child was a defacto property of the wife and she could deprive her husband of them with a divorce. 
this has only recently changed with the growing popularity of joint custody arrangements. in practice valves arrangements create considerable difficulty for the courts. when one parent wants to move out of the area and take the children with them there is usually a massive court battle over whether that should be allowed or not and there usually isn’t an obvious answer.

The only exception would be if you have older children, teenagers, Who have strong views about which parent they would prefer to live with if it becomes a choice between them. But this of course creates its own unfortunate circumstance where the children are effectively forced to choose between parents.

even when you consider that because of biological necessity the man is more likely to have a stable career than the woman, because they don’t need to take career breaks for pregnancy and childbirth. this may seem like an advantage but in a divorce proceeding The court may be inclined toward custody to the party that doesn’t have a full-time job. What so-called male ‘advantage’ give us with one hand it takes with the other.

for many men who work full time and have X wives Who dont, who have possibly remarried, The child is still likely to be treated as the de facto property of the woman.

it still is like that in every non western country. thats just the old fuedal system where the man is the dynasty head and he married his daughters off for alliances or merging of other families to strengthen and create a strong family dynasty and ensure his line and his people dont become extinct.

we got rid of that in the west, thats why the west is facing a fertility crisis and europeans will become extinct in the future..... the other non western countries still do this which is why they breed fast and spread. they are coming here and breeding here while we dont, so we will go extinct, they will take this country... and bam, when they have the country its the same system that you speak of again lol so we will have it here again and that issue is the fact without that your people dont breed and they go extinct and other people that have this system breed alot and take over and become the new majority rulers and it becomes their system.

values are bred, and the people with good values simply wont and dont want to breed.

There are things other than illegal physical compulsion or threats that can be applied to people. Powerful forces, including family expectations, financial pressure, the effect of societal norms can all come into play to ensure that people, overwhelmingly women, marry against their wishes. Even now in church weddings the bride is 'given away' by her father or other male relative to her husband. This is now 'play acting', but not all that long ago this was a reality and a daughter becoming a wife was legally exchanging one 'legal owner' for another. Unless there were a prior legal dispensation in place, the husband had unfettered access to all of his wife's property and all children of the marriage came under his sole legal control.

You have to go a long way back in the uk to find a time when forced marrage was legal. Pre christian times in fact. It was one of the first things the church and newly christian kings banned. Why do you think the church doors allways have to be left open at church weddings? To stop forced marrages that were banned under church law.

I really do not appreciate you being abusive in that manner Debbie.   You owe sperg an apology.  He EXPLICITLY said "50 years", you even included that in your quote.

Was it within the past 50 years ... what you are talking about?  No.  So you started out with a deliberately misrepresentation of what he said in order to be abusive and falsely claim he was joking about horrible stuff.

You should show the grace he previously did and apologise and express never to do it again.

Sadly, she is not.

Biology inflicts basic rules on organisms. I've been hearing some lurid stories of animals behaving badly second hand from my mates daughter this week who is doing a PHD...

Like it or not, society is rejectig basic biology and sexual mores, in favour of a newer, more egalitarian approach where what were once basic sex defined roles are now considered "fungible". 

It is my understanding that the sort of patriarchal male oppression depicted was less prevalent than Debbie thinks. 

BUT there is a "war against children" documentary that can be sought out and watched to get a wider angle picture of what is going on here in the west...

c'mon. you have got to be kidding?!

I Sperg said:

OTOH, I do know a really bad one word joke that has been played on many women now for at least 50 years...

Feminism

I wish I could transport you back to a time where you are female and owned by your husband, unable to own property, vote or work, educated or have any rights at all.

Oh, and raped every night by a man you didn't want to marry and forced to have children you don't want.

Or perhaps we could go back just 50 years as that's the time span you mentioned when at last women have access to contraception, but are still being treated as objects, owned by their husbands, regularly raped and beaten in their own home, denied the ability to do well in a career, asked if they intend to have a family when interviewed and then rejected when they say yes, institutionalised for having children out of wedlock, patronised, typecast and constrained.

And that's just the start of it.

No, but it does let out a constant high-pitched screech.

It's not really much of a bomb if it's only offended one person...

Does the F-Bomb have the time delay fuse in the back?

Sperg, I am deeply offended you would drop the f-bomb like that!  :-)