Good for the judge. It's also good that the mother will have to pay for the therapy costs. Kudos to the father for not walking away. I don't know why some people do this to their kids. It's not right and it has long term consequences.

It's tragic and horrible and should be seen as a serious crime.

Cute comeuppance story... But it's as pat and (presumably) atypical as the violent scenarios in TV commercials discussed last week.

Seeing judges rooting around in families this way is never a cause for celebration. Just sayin'. Our judges have better things to do than this, or at least they oughtta.

Something we agree on then Amy!

Nice to see the use of PAS as a recognised condition in a courtroom setting - more judgements like this one will go some way to demolishing the "junk science" crowd's proclamations.

I just hope it's not too late for the kids to re-develop their relationship with Dad, and I hope he guards against a "Jennifer Collins" type scenario.

"Seeing judges rooting around in families this way is never a cause for celebration."

I agree somewhat, but if you can't get your ex to come to a reasonable, and reasonably adult, agreement on access (to your own kids) then SOMEONE has to step in..

"Just sayin'"

James, no tears if —excuse me, when— the courts start doing it for fun, OK? You asked for it.

Offtopic: Thinking of you, Raddy.

Hate to be a pessimist, but it's too late. If it took a decade, and the kids are now 9 to 14, odds are they have been successfully brainwashed by now. Which means they are being sent to live with a guy they think is a bad person. These kids are going to be fucked up.

This needed to happen nine years ago.

What needed to happen is that bitter, manipulative goofs like this shouldn't have been so successful at perpetuating their bitterness.

James still pisses me off with that "SOMEONE has to step in.."

It's just appalling that people reflexively think that someone should be government.

Who else then? If not the courts, who else should/could the father turn to? What other recourse did he have?

Totally off topic, but reading this made me think of Amy. Perhaps the answer the Muslim threat lays here:

Smoking fatwa

> Who else then?

Right... Of course government is my ultimate Daddy, the one who soothes me and solves my problems... After all, who else could I turn to? What could possibly go wrong?

Right.

Crid -

Among the few reasons that governments are formed is to act as an arbiter in legal disputes among men.

What is custody, but a legal dispute? If he forced his way into the house, he'd be a criminal. If he kidnapped the daughters, he'd be a criminal.

The courts were the only recourse he had left.

Do you know anyone personally who has gone through a divorce involving children? I know several. And each and every one of them has had to get the police involved to get their psycho bitch ex-wives to actually obey the divorce decree that they agreed to, with varying degrees of success.

So while I understand your cynicism of government, there's really no alternative in a civilized society for resolving this class of dispute.

Come on Crid, if you disagree so strongly with it being the Justice system that steps in, please suggest an alternative.

I'm agog to hear how you would propose to stop an alienating parent from ripping the bonds you share with your kid(s) apart?

Come to that, if "government" doesn't step in on this sort of thing, what else should it not referee?

Contract disputes? (good luck on conducting any sort of commercial venture then).

Policing? (or are you a 'shoot first, worry about the blood feud later' kind of guy?)

Territorial disputes? (fancy your neighbour squatting on your property?)

Please - sarcasm aside, how would you resolve a situation wherein one parent (either one) denies rights of access to the joint progeny of a failed relationship to the other?

These kids have been sent to live with someone they see as evil, and that's a victory for who? Him? It's sure not good for them at this point.

What many of you don't seem to get, and I"m not arguing for banning fathers here, is that kids DO need one person "in charge". Joint custody is crap. Being here, being there, different rules here, different rules there, it's worse for kids than one parent. Of course, you won't see those studies. WHich goes back to the whole put the energy into working ON your marriage instead of working on the end of it thing. Idiots should not be allowed to breed. Too bad there's not a sanity test for parenting.

The government that can remove custody from your exwife can just as easily and more likely do it to you. Bet you don't want them interferring THEN, though, do ya?

I've seen this one a few times as well, I'm glad my ex is almost benign... a couple of things?

1]Judge is a woman. In my admittedly limited experience a male judge is a lot more likely to forgive such things... strange as it sounds. And? The easiest way to make it hard is for the ex to just say: "oh yeah? I don't care what I agreed to, you can just take me to court." After 5 years, my ex still uses that to decide what she will and wont do. I can withold paying support for some limited time, to get her attention, but the state is totally on her side for that. She doesn't have to hire a lwayer to compel me. Which leads us to #2

2]The ex-couple must have had plenty of money to fight such things. This is very expensive, to have lawyers work this thorugh the courts at least in the US. I don't know how different the Canadian courts are. My lawyer told me straight out that I wasn't rich enough to fight for physical custodianship. I have joint custody, but they live with her... and short of her being a criminal I can't afford to change that.

Crid is right, to a degree, and so is the other side. This is just a bad situation. Most guys I know would more likely let it go to keep from damaging the kids further. Kids are going to grow up and figure their mom out. The responsibility for their corrupting their hearts lies with her, and the tug of war over the kids doesn't necessarily help them. As long as he can show them that he has never left them, that may be the best that can be done.

The courts can't always rescue, because for every good case, there are many bad ones, where the court buys one parents' story when it is a crock and punishes the other. The kids always lose. So some guys figure it is better to take themselves out of the picture and hope that it won't antagonize their ex more if they are gone. A lot of times just your existance enrages the ex, so picking up the kids makes her mad, and woe to you if you get hitched again, or have a girlfriend that your kids know about. My ex did some pretty nasty things just imagining I had a girlfriend.

Getting a judge to compel one side or the other ultimately puts a certain amount of caeslaw out there for well or ill... Then that is interpreted and so forth. It really depends on the judge, and that makes them a wildcard.

There is a similar situation next door to me. Three boys, a single (age 12) and a set of twins (age 10). Divorced parents, father has remarried. Their mother is the psycho-bitch from hell. The parents have joint custody. The father and new wife have 2 small children, a girl (age 3)and a boy (just past 1). Ex-wife is a friggin nightmare. She comes to pick up her boys, parks in front of my driveway, so I can't leave when she starts her shit, yelling and screaming at the boys to "get out here NOW!" and screaming at the new wife. She even tries to get into the house when the father isn't there. I've sauntered over on more than one occasion. Just to see if anyone needs any "help". (The little girl always comes over to my house looking for cookies. Of course, she always gets one!) My neighbors are trying to create a semblance of normalcy for all of the children and this one woman does her damndest to upset that every single time she comes to get the older boys. They have (had) a golden retriever. She's gorgeous and such a good dog, but when the older boys' mother saw how good she was with the little ones, she took the father back to court to get custody -of the dog! She's one of the most vindictive lunatics I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. It's all her way or no way. At least the father has a handle on things and brooks no shit from her. But I can see the stress she causes every time she shows up to pick up or drop the boys off. Especially when the father isn't there and she tries to bully the stepmother. It just can't be good for the older boys. Or the younger kids.

Ah, yes. The ever-popular "I don't want you, and no-one else can have you" gambit.

Why can't women be up front about their psychosis so men won't marry them and/or make babies with them?

Hey Crid, if you just get rid of government (like the police), I would simply go over and take my kids. Period. I have more force.

You really want that? Because then men would win almost all the time.

Since we DO have courts, then they may as well make the RIGHT decision to put the kids with dad, instead of with immature and spiteful mommy, instead of making a worse decision.

Get it (finally)?

Wait a minute, there's an error in there. If there are three girls, ages 9 through 14, who were just transferred to their father's care, the wife couldn't have been keeping them from him for 14 years. Nine years maybe, but not fourteen. I checked the Toronto Star article, and the error is in the judge McWatt's comment.

I say anything that gets these bad examples of motherhood to sit up and take notice that their petty immature bullshit won't work anymore is a good thing. I was married once and had to put up the the shrew from hell when it came to my stepdaughter, and after that I decided that I would never, ever date a man with children ever again. It's just not worth it, and it's completely unfair that these women can act like petulant ten-year-olds and get away with it.

Anyone else think that these women's spoiled, psycho-bitch behaviour is the reason they're divorced?

It really bothers me that custody agreements are almost always in favor of the mothers. My mother should never have been given custody of me. Same with my husband's ex-wife. The minute divorce came out of his mouth, she was out partying and drinking like no tomorrow while he had to get his mother to come and take care of his kids so he could work, or get her to find his ex to bring her home and take care of the little ones. Yet she got custody! She had already shacked up with one of her party boys before her soon to be ex-husband had moved out of the house.

Geez, you guys are absolutely fixated on this. You just can't imagine a world —closer to the one Amy so often dreams of— where government is forbidden to intrude in this most private of realms. It's not even that you think government's the best tool for the job (better than the church or any smaller cluster of community). You want it to be the only authority.

I think that's pathetic. I think you like these courts because you enjoy the theater of stories like this one, and you enjoy the thrill of (vicariously) picking a team when told of a tragedy like this one, as if to flaunt your refined gender affinities. You want justice delivered with the satisfying snap of the denouement in a Judge Judy episode.

> Because then men would win
> almost all the time.

These brutes of your fantasy don't exist in a vacuum.

Y'know, two weeks ago, the story of the decade seemed to be how Putin had pulled Russia back into a direction of big-man authoritarianism. Poverty grows and public health collapses, but that's how things are done over there, and it's in their national character.

A trend just as powerful and ugly is happening here. Americans are counting on government for more and more intrusion into their economic and social lives... While simultaneously daydreaming of themselves as savage animals in a world that doesn't care, fending for their loved ones in a vacuum of tradition and compassion.

Which is, y'know, dumb.

Thing about conservatism is, it's the only game in town. You'll be back. But like I said, don't come cryin'. No tears if the family courts thing doesn't work out for you....

> Why can't women be up front
> about their psychosis

So you think the little guys are too easily deceived?

"Seeing judges rooting around in families this way is never a cause for celebration."

Isn't that what family courts do? They root around in the family and decide that one parent, usually the man, will lose most of his rights to his children. He is granted the right to see them every second weekend and, in this case, the right to phone them to say goodnight three days a week.

Often the custodial parent messes with even these paltry rights. The cause for celebration is that in one case, a judge didn't let the psycho-bitch mother get away with it.

> Isn't that what family courts do?

Yes, goddammit! That's my point! These places suck, and patience the people who patronize them is running thin!

Again, Crid - how should these disputes be handled?

Or should divorce and separation be forbidden when there are children involved?

Crid - "So you think the little guys are too easily deceived?"

Kudos on the "shaming language"! Bolsters your position so well!

Your point would be better taken if the government/courts were not already overly active in "taking" children away from their fathers - a little false DV/child abuse charge sure goes a long way - then those same authorities would not be so necessary in helping get children back into their fathers lives, now would they?

so Crid, seriously, what is the option? You can't cop out by saying "shoulda never gone and married someone you will divorce later."

The reason the govt. is set as arbiter is because in theory they are the most objective. They have their own biases, true, but the 2 people divorcing are completely subjective. So. What is the option here for existent marriages?

Interestingly if you never get hitched at all, but have kids? One parent, likely the father, has almost no rights, because there is no separation agreement/ decree at all. That means that person has to go to court to get any kind of visitation.

Are you advocating that the baby be split in two? Relying on people to be reaonable simply doesn't work. If they were reasonable, likely they would work it out.

So really, really, I want to hear your plan... 'cuz I'd love to have that "oh, I didn't think of that" moment.

"Justice Faye McWatt of the Superior Court of Justice wrote in her decision."

Note the gender of the judge. It takes a woman to give these just judgments in these case; women tend to be less pussy-whipped in these cases.

"What many of you don't seem to get, and I"m not arguing for banning fathers here, is that kids DO need one person "in charge". "

God point, momof3. What you seem to be missing is that that person in charge OBVIOUSLY should not be this deranged abuser. And do I hear you saying that the "one person in charge" should be the mother by default? Because there isn't much daylight between "banning fathers" and presuming that the mother should be the one to raise children and set the standards at home.

I think Crid's point is that the government is clumsy and slow to act, and then usually gets it wrong. He may have a point; perhaps the simplest and cleanest solution would have been family-to-family negotiation - a member of the father's family walks up to the psycho-bitch in the produce section and slits her throat. Or maybe not. Dunno. Courts arose in the Common Law tradition specifically to reduce clan warfare between families. A simpler solution might be to insist on equality before the law. It would take more woman judges and more women legislators for that though.

"A trend just as powerful and ugly is happening here. Americans are counting on government for more and more intrusion into their economic and social lives...."

Crid, what you don't understand, maybe because you are so sheltered and so used to the security that government provides you that you seem to think there is something natural and unartificial about it, is that there is an equal trend in the opposite direction. Just south of the border, a lot closer than the eternally benighted and authoritarian Russia, government authority is collapsing in a maelstrom of drug cartel violence. And it hasn't resulted in th4 blossoming of personal freedom. Not at all. More peopel have died from this violence in Mexico this year than have died in Iraq from all their vilolence. And the situation is the same in other places, like Afghanistan, like Somalia, like a whiole list of other places. People develop governments for a reason; they are not just some external structure imposed from above.

Louis CK said it best (I'm probably paraphrasing slightly): "Boys fuck things up. Girls are fucked up. A man will rob you, punch you in the face, burn down your house. But he won't change who you are as a person. A woman will shit inside your heart."

There are exceptions, of course.

"...after the woman spent more than a decade trying to alienate them from their father.
The mother's "consistent and overwhelming" campaign to brainwash the children into thinking their father was a bad person was nothing short of emotional abuse..."

My mom did this to all 3 of us kids while my dad was still living under the same roof. They're still together, by the way, 50 years later. The kids, on the other hand, are stuck with the damage from the emotional abuse.

We weren't allowed to talk to our father, or go anywhere with him, or spend any time with him. If any of the above happened, we were nagged mercilessly at all hours of the day & night. We were also told quite regularly what a loser he was, etc.

All 3 of us have cut all ties with my mom because of this.

The whole thing kind of bums me out about the contraceptives being cut from the stimulus package. That was pretty much the only part of it I was in favor of.

All fine and good Crid, but you still won't explain your non-court solution for these sorts of situations.

I don't know about California, but in many jurisdictions the courts either require or strongly encourage families to attempt mediation, before they will address the matter. But when mediation has failed and one parent has decided to ignore the rights of the other, what do you suggest is the best solution?

The simplest solution...and legally speaking the most equitable, is to treat the process of pregnancy or birth as irrelevant to rights, and set the rights instead on the basis of responsibility.

A partner which accepts financial support in any sum must concede 50/50 custody for children until they are of age to decide whom they wish to live with.

In order to cut out one partner, the primary caregiver must as the first step in the process refuse any and all financial support by the secondary caregiver.

Denial of access should further be considered a criminal act and punishable by a month in jail which is doubled with each succeeding offense.

Amounts paid in support also need to be changed. More specifically the amount paid should be percentage based on net income, not gross.

A father putting half his paycheck into a household he lives in is one thing...but when he has to move out, live in another place, pay THAT rent, THAT set of utilities, etc etc...well most people don't make enough to support two households.

Especially if the spouse holding the children refuses to work.

Instead the father should submit a report of gross income, and an itemized list of normal costs of living, credit card bills, school/insurance/rent, things like that, and then a fraction...say blank% of his remaining income, be devoted to to the spouse caring for the children.

Just a few suggestions.

Another flaw in the argumant that courts are intruding into family business is that after a divorce, the ex-wife isn't part of the family any more. She's just another person on the street, by her own choice if she initiated the divorce as tends to be the case. How esle to deal with a a stranger who is interfering with your rights than to go to court?

> you don't understand, maybe because
> you are so sheltered

Naw, you don't understand, because you're so wedded to your worldview. (The savagery in Mexico is not simply governmental.) You just can't imagine a life where there's no Papa Government to approach for personal dispute resolution. You're absolutely stuck on this. Multiple commenters beg for "an alternative". It's apparently inconceivable that people could be more responsible in mating. You absolutely must have the option of whining —as if from the back seat of a car when Sissy starts crying during a long trip— "Well, she started it!" The broader culture is expected to investigate your personal romantic incompetence, no matter how pathetic the failure.

Courts mean government. There's nothing magical about government. Government is an arrangement we all make to get a few particular needs met. The costs of government, financial and moral, are sacrificed with the understanding that the services provided will not be abused.

Well, all these fucktard divorces are abusing the privilege. I'm tired of hiring judges and lawyers for these assholes, and tired of seeing these childish bitchslaps refereed under authority of my taxpaying citizenship.

Maybe I should read Amy's post carefully, and follow the links.

[Aw, why start now?]

Oh all right, just a smidge:

| after the woman spent more than
| a decade trying to alienate them
| from their father.

So this has been going on for a long, long time. And the masculine protagonist presumably wants us to believe that the mother was a just a radiant beam of sunshine during courtship... A sweet, crystalline, quenching drop of morning dew, an absolute sweetheart, a delight to everyone who met her, a woman whose aspirations were always in perfect alignment with his own. And she'll say her early perceptions of him were exactly like that, too... He was stalwart, hardworking, loving, emotionally available superman whose carriage conducted an electrifying awareness of the needs of those around him... Essentially a superman. So when they met and married (or roughly at that time), of course their underpants flew off as if carried by caffeinated pixie-sprites, such that they commenced to fuck and be making babies forthwith.

(Right? Is that how it went? It's important that I understand this narrative perfectly, otherwise my sympathy collapses.)

But then, we'd presumably be told, shortly after the marriage, it turned out that she was 'a psychopathic bitch!' (Or, he was a 'a lying asshole!')... Such that for a period of between five and fifteen years, she's been corrupting the souls of these children who meant so much to him from a distance. And he took no role in creating the problems, and there's no way he could have foreseen her transition before they started fucking. (You can make up your own scenarios for her side of the story, OK?)

I just don't believe it. People can marry well. I've seen it happen. When they don't, I'm tired of it being a problem for the rest of us.

> "Maybe if they realize the courts will
> actually step in and do something
> and there is a risk of not only losing
> custody, but having no contact with
> their children, they'll think twice
> about it," Niman said

Or maybe a lawyer likes to describe a petty, routine client-billing is a noble expression of righteousness.

> Your point would be better taken
> if the government/courts were
> not already overly active

Among men (& women) who marry well, avoidance of court intrusion in this manner is nearly perfect.

I have a divorce, and I love it like hell. (No kids.) But please, people, let's not pretend no shame (or responsibility) accrues.

"And do I hear you saying that the "one person in charge" should be the mother by default? "

No. Nor do I think it should be the dad always. And sometimes, neither one. I think this 2 weeks here, 2 weeks there crap is just that-crap to make the parents feel less like failures at their most important job. Nor should the parent housing the kids have to ask the other parent for permission before getting medical care or enrolling in school or whatever. Joint custody doesn't work, physical or legal.

"The broader culture is expected to investigate your personal romantic incompetence, no matter how pathetic the failure."

Absolute best line ever. And best point. No one ever wants to accept responsibility for marrying and breeding with these "psycho bitches", do they?

And for the guy saying without government he'd just go over and take his kids, cause he has more force: wasn't there just a blog topic about how abusive women are, and how they can brain you with ashtrays? I think she's probably meet you at the door with a gun and use it, don't you? I would.

Naw, you don't understand, because you're so wedded to your worldview. (The savagery in Mexico is not simply governmental.) You just can't imagine a life where there's no Papa Government to approach for personal dispute resolution. You're absolutely stuck on this.

Could it be we're wedded to this worldview, because this is how civilization has functioned for as long as we've had governance? Courts and even other government functionaries to resolve personal disputes is not some new fangled idea. We've been doing it for thousands of years. It could be argued that the concept predates language.

Sometimes in the course of living, people end up with disputes that they simply cannot come to an agreement on. In many cases, they can attempt non-binding resolution with a mediator, or they may attempt binding resolution mediation. Short at that, they will seek the judgment of someone with the authority to enforce resolution.

And this is a good thing. Because the alternative is to either sit and stew and wish you could do something, or take it into your own hands. And we can look at history and see what happens when such binding arbitration is unavailable. People rarely sit and stew about it. Instead they go out and resolve the dispute with violence. Need an example? Look at those who trade in the illicit. They generally don't sit around twiddling their thumbs when they get fucked. Rather, they go out and they do violence.

I am all for people making better decisions about their relationships. But in the real world people don't. In the real world people lie to each other. Humans are corrupt creatures who quite often don't play nice. Whether it's husband and wife, business partners or neighbors, conflicts inevitably arise that require legal arbitration. The alternative to providing such arbitration is violence and chaos, neither of which is good for society.

"I'm agog..."

I've got a relative?!

So this has been going on for a long, long time. And the masculine protagonist presumably wants us to believe that the mother was a just a radiant beam of sunshine during courtship... A sweet, crystalline, quenching drop of morning dew, an absolute sweetheart, a delight to everyone who met her, a woman whose aspirations were always in perfect alignment with his own.

Yes. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've also seen what you are on about - which is everyone else sees a psycho bitch, but the fuck-struck nimrod marries her anyhow.

But I've seen women turn on a dime. Right after the reception is over, she becomes Queen Bitch, and her now-trapped husband is standing there wondering what the fuck just happened to him.

You have to accept that there are some women out there that are just that conniving. Once that ring goes on, especially in a community property state, half your shit is legally hers. And a great many men will stay and try to work it out to get back to the lovely young lady they proposed to rather than forfeit the fruits of their labor.

It never works.

Yeah... Women. They're conniving, aren't they? Just can't trust 'em. It's tragic.

Ah well, we can count on the law to make things work...

> everyone else sees a psycho bitch,
> but the fuck-struck nimrod

Do you understand that bitterness is not the same thing as clarity, and that they might actually be enemies?

Ah well, we can count on the law to make things work...

Maybe not ideally, but better than just shooting each other. A judge is never going have the perfect answer. It's never going to make everyone involved happy and rarely will achieve the ideal of anyone involved. Hardly ever does the judge have the answer that will be ideal for the kids.

It's just better than the alternative. And hopefully minimizes the harm to the kids.

Do you understand that ideals are just that, ideals. Do you understand that ideals are simply not reality, no matter how much you piss and whine about it? Because no matter how much you piss and whine about people being more responsible about the relationships they form, it isn't going to change. At times it will be better, others it will be worse. But we've been dealing with these problems since we worked out language, probably before.

You're pissing about thirty some thousand years of bad decision making.

> but better than just shooting
> each other.

That's the only option to family court?

Who knew?

I think you're pressing the logic a little too aggressively. Why would a guy wanna do that?

Because maybe submitting your dearest grievances to the hung-over whim of Blogojovich's seventh cousin (or similar political crony) in chamber of maple and oak is easier than accepting responsibility for your own judgment, or for the character of the woman you selected to bring your children into the world?

Just a guess.

> ideals are simply not reality

The idealism is all yours (not really, you share it with Brian and others): First, that selecting mates for parenting can be a casual, solitary, impulsive process for which saying "Golly, I did my best" can excuse any failure; and secondly, that family court can provide absolution. (If they can just learn to correctly assign blame, then doggone it, everything will be just ducky....)

Y'know, I didn't read Brian's comment closely enough. He used the word "conniving" even before I tried to mock him with it.

That's some sloppy blog pissing on my part... Apologies. It's very hard to keep up with youse guys.

Also, Gog has no relatives. He's sui generis.

Seriously, dude... Spill it. What does that name mean?

That's the only option to family court?

Not by a long shot, but it is very common among people who are given no other redress and who end up in unresolved conflicts.

The idealism is all yours

No, that would be yours in assuming that all people will ever do all the things they should do when choosing a mate.

Not that I'm saying it could never happen, but we have thirty some thousand years of people making the wrong choice.

and secondly, that family court can provide absolution.

They can't. They can't even make the situation just grand for the people who really matter, the kids. What they can do is provide imperfect resolution to the dispute.

And they keep people from having no other recourse but to shoot each other. Because when given no other avenue for resolution, that's one of the common things that people in conflict do.

And if you don't like shooting, there's always blugeoning. Or Flynne's broadsword (I'm kind of partial to hot women with big swords, whacking off heads). There's also the ever popular, run the motherfucker over. Or just kicking some serious ass.

(Writing a stupid paper about ten things I appreciate about sight has put me in a somewhat violent mood)

"accepting responsibility" crid

er, yeah? meaning what, exactly? You own a happy divorce, yes? What exactly would have been different had their been kids? Would they have magically made it easier to stay? Or made it more possible to accept responsibility. This 'shoulda married better and take responsibility' looks to be made of straw.

on the other hand this? is the best line ever.

"of course their underpants flew off as if carried by caffeinated pixie-sprites"

their? there OI!

"one of the common things"

It was a remarkably common thing in the neighborhood I recently moved from. Common among people with unresolved conflicts, the nature of which prohibited legal avenues for resolution.

But like I said, there's also bludgeoning....Or serious ass-kicking...Or the sword (though that's really not so common anymore)

> It was a remarkably common thing

If someone's that close to animal rampage, marriage adjudication is probably the wrong tool for the job.

> What exactly would have been
> different had their been kids?

It would have been much more important to keep it together.

> Would they have magically made
> it easier to stay?

You want things to be made easy?

> This 'shoulda married better
> and take responsibility' looks
> to be made of straw.

Your arguments do not compel.

It's the understanding that there are other avenues, that keep people from getting that angry. Take away all hope for legal resolution and people get hopeless. From hopelessness it's not a long step over to primal rage.

"You really want that? Because then men would win almost all the time."

Hey, wait a minute!

You really need to examine this. What does "win" mean? Getting to determine whether you get custody?

Is that really worse than the current, apparent, court bias, of giving custody to the woman? Not only is she typically undertrained and ill-employed, women are four times more likely to abuse children.

So what would happen if there was a magic rule, where the man gets to say who gets custody?

The number of kids with single dads would go up. These leaves more time for newly-single women to get back on their feet and determine where they are going to go, and what they are going to do next.

How is that bad?

I've quite a lot of sympathy for the "personal responsibility" argument that Crid puts forward (hey, who'd have known?), but I really have to wonder if you'd be quite so strong in your opinion had your divorce not worked out so well.

Despite that, I still haven't seen a convincing argument from you on what to replace courts with. Even Utopia (and I admit it's been a while since I last read it) had a justice system. One assumes that you have a role-model state wherein your ideal of 'small government' works well (or has worked well in the past)?

As for women turning from 'fairy princess' to 'bridge-dwelling troll,' I have had personal experience of that. Fortunately it all came to light before we got as far as marriage, but it took three years to emerge.

Lucky (and it was down to luck) escape.

Whilst I accept that nobody would have forced my marriage to her, would it still be wholly my responsibility (in your view) given that she 'sweetened' up much of her past (with her family's complicity)?

Had she and I had kids, I am (now) in absolutely no doubt that she'd have used them against me in any possible way that came to mind.

I don't know whether she could shoot straight either, but I know that she'd have been the first to reach for a weapon had that been an option.

> still haven't seen a convincing
> argument from you on what to
> replace courts with

Then you didn't get the point, did you?

Crid - what you propose is not going to happen.

People will continue to choose mates poorly. Therefore, we can either come up with ways to mitigate the damage from said choices, we can start forced temporary sterility until suitability is determined, or we can start preventing incompatible or unacceptable people from copulating.

Given those choices, isn't the court one the least offensive to liberty?

You know Crid, even though I disagree with you on this, I do have to respect your position. There is a very obvious parallel between your position on this and mine on politics.

For most people, both politics and the family court system boils down to the choice presenting the least negative choice, rather than the best choice. It occurs to me while arguing the futility of you position, that I get exactly the same sorts of arguments about the futility of my position. I also accept that - at least in the short term, my position on politics is futile. But that doesn't stop me from arguing voraciously for it and voting my conscience.

Right.... No matter what, you're going to shamelessly bother the strangers who surround you with your personal problems.

"But...(sniff) If Big Daddy goverment won't coddle me, then who will?"

Crid, you're being infantile.

You pretend that you can wave a magic wand and nobody will ever have sex with an inappropriate partner.

You pretend that you can do the same, and nobody will ever marry poorly.

You pretend that nobody will ever go insane after the baby comes.

And you use this pretend to argue that the entire system as it exists today is nothing more than the imposition of personal failure upon society in general, and therefore the system ought to be done away with.

None of which addresses the core problem - that people suck, and they're going to do stupid things, and those stupid things are going to impact the strangers around them. At that point, those strangers have a vested interest in a quick and durable resolution to the problem, so they can go back to being strangers.

Simply wishing for people to control their reproductive organs isn't gonna cut it. At some point, society is going to be asked to step in and deal with it. They can do so on the front-end, or the back-end.

Which do you prefer?

"Then you didn't get the point, did you?"

I believe I got your point, I just don't accept that courts aren't a necessary evil, or that everything in life is directly attributable to an individual's own decisions (good or bad).

Crid, I disagree with you on so many issues, and yet I'm so glad you're here to give us gold-plated reading like this:

"So when they met and married (or roughly at that time), of course their underpants flew off as if carried by caffeinated pixie-sprites, such that they commenced to fuck and be making babies forthwith."

Which, as SwissArmyD pointed out, is the best line ever.

"You just can't imagine a life where there's no Papa Government to approach for personal dispute resolution."

"Papa government." The monkey is showing his tail. Government is not some parent and adolescent rebellion is not a useful response.

"Government is an arrangement we all make to get a few particular needs met. "

This is actually a lot closer to what I said, if you had been able to read it accurately enough, in contrast to your strawmanning bullshit above. So we do agree on the origin and function of government.

"But then, we'd presumably be told, shortly after the marriage, it turned out that she was 'a psychopathic bitch!' (Or, he was a 'a lying asshole!')... "

And Ted Bundy made it obvious to everyone on the first meeting that he was a sociopath. Time after time. You may be confident of your ability to read people, but unless you are as sociopathic as these people, they will be able to fool you. They excel at that. In fact that is a diagnostic symptom.

"I have a divorce, and I love it like hell. (No kids.) But please, people, let's not pretend no shame (or responsibility) accrues."

Apples and oranges. This is about kids and not divorce. So you got a divorce - so now the ex is just some "whitebitch you used to fuck" - same thing for all of us. Big deal. Kids are different, kids are blood kin, not some piece of white or whatever you're in looooooooooove with. Big difference.

"Naw, you don't understand, because you're so wedded to your worldview. "

Projection. Stop talking to the mirror.

The worldview you are wedded to is that people are basically rational creatures and that when we act irrationally that is some kind of deviation. This is a touchingly optimistic view but its just not a practical way to deal with humans or to predict their behavior. You'll learn this with age.

Here's another endearingly trusting aspect of your worldview - you seem to think that people are naturally law-abiding and that they naturally respect other people's rights and dignity. People may or may not take responsibility, but they will damn sure take action. And condemning them as irresponsible after the fact is just non-responsive, isn't it? That's why we need the courts - either beforehand to sort the problem out in some orderly process - or afterwards, with jail time to deal with the failure to resolve the probelm smoothly.

You're so busy being snarky that you're not taking enough time to be clear.

Crid, how much clearer can we be?

You're obfuscating faster than an Illinois Governor.

Golly. A roiling mob of dissent! And only 99% are pathologically bitter guys!

(Someday someone's going to have to explain how Amy's blog attracts this particular personality. It's not just because she's a pretty redhead. There must be a hundred and fifty-one thousand pretty redheads on the internet. And it's strange how this cluster of acrid zombies functions so comfortably alongside an array of not-bitter lady commenters who presumably just enjoyed the advice column and decided to stop by.)

Well, I know I can count on the mob for one good thing.... Next time Amy says that what she actually wants is for the government to give up certifying marriages, you guys'll back me up when I tell her that's wrong. Won't you? Sure you will. Because there's obviously no way you're going to let society stop providing you with family court at no charge.

(You won't have to mean it when you say it, because Amy doesn't mean it either, or she wouldn't care about gay marriage. But you'll have to say it like you mean it. We'll all know the truth.)

And since we've drifted into this...

Modern family practices are to America in these years what slavery of Africans was to America two hundred years ago.

One reason —perhaps the main reason— that our present patterns of marriage and divorce are so repugnant is that they imagine marriage as a personal contract between two people, and not as an agreement for mutual respect between the couple and any larger community. (And of course, children don't factor into it at all. There's no point in saying that, except that when someone goes through the records in January of 2209, I want them to know that a few of us were awake to this madness.)

The idea that marrieds owe something to society in exchange for the license doesn't make sense to people, even as they demand tax blessings and other legal courtesies as bearers of the contract. It's all about taking things for private fulfillment. And that providence is imagined to be, um, supernatural... It's believed that the value will just be lying around for anyone who wants it.

The comparison to finances in Washington this week is irresistible. $819 billion (with-a-B) are going to be distributed through an array of inane, unsupervised power structures, as if the money really existed... Or as if it could come from someone other than ourselves, or had been collected by something other than threat of imprisonment.

The common man thinks public value just exists, y'know? Or that if it actually is taken from someone, it's probably a mean old guy like Cheney, so fuck 'im.

Today we see that not only does this precious freedom to marry and collect booty come out of nowhere.... That's just the beginning! Today we see that can also be mocked and incompetently pursued without penalty. And then! And then!

And then!... Instead of feeling shame or acknowledging failure, the clumsy spouse expects the rest of the society to again take an interest in the outcome, providing adjudication and accepting moral responsibility for these personal stumbles, as if the society had forced marriage upon the divorcing petitioners.

Why? It's just too pathetic. Why are you demanding that the rest of the entire goddamn society go through this circuitous charade, often through multiple circuits?

Human nature is not pretty. People can be bitter and stingy and self-aggrandizing, especially when no one in their lives puts up an objection. People apparently really want to believe that society should take notice (and provide blessings) when they fall in love, and take notice (and provide blessings) when that love goes wrong.

But a broken heart is not a big deal for any sentient human over age 14. (Sorry.)

And it's not just bitter... It's stupid to imagine that this is the norm for humanity and could never improve. Two hundred years ago, slaveholders thought nothing of whipping slaves... But word got out, and eventually slavery ended. A century ago (give or take), women were obviously never going to vote or make other significant contributions to the larger world beyond the home. Retarded people, sick people and elderly people get all kinds of respect today that they didn't get in earlier times.

Too many of you have just not taken the point. You literally cannot conceive of a time when more is expected of a citizen (or a plantation owner or a loving husband or a parent to a crippled child).

But if civilization continues to improve —even if by the fits & starts that so appall us day by day— your cynicism will soon seem as grotesque as the slaver's whip. It is not cute. It is not sophisticated.

It is not realistic.

Crid --

What you just wrote is, quite unintentionally I believe, pretty much what the NROniks say about marriage: that it wouldn't be a problem if it was engaged in only by the Godly.

Which, I believe I've argued in the past.

I'd love to see all civil recognition of marriage and the dispensation of special privilege done away with. Return it to its status as a religious sacrament, and let the church deal with it (we both know that isn't going to happen).

Because at least at one point, the church was interested in teaching children how to choose a mate, how to be a mate, and how to do both well.

It's only in the past hundred or so years of state intervention that matrimony has become something of a joke.

And we get it, you're irked that your money is used to pay for a court system that disposes of broken marriages. How do you feel about any other contract adjudication? Or do you not want to pay for a court system that is used to settle petty disputes between parties to any contract?

brian -

It's only in the past hundred or so years of state intervention that matrimony has become something of a joke.

Not that I disagree with you on the larger point, but marriage has always been as much a civil institution, as it's been a religious one.

Crid -

And only 99% are pathologically bitter guys!

The only bitterness I'm seeing here is your own.

Two hundred years ago, slaveholders thought nothing of whipping slaves... But word got out, and eventually slavery ended.

No, it really hasn't. Slavery exists all over the world today. It even exists here in the U.S.,, no matter how much we'd like to pretend it doesn't. And it's pretty brutal and ugly. Get their backs against the wall and the slavers think nothing of slaughtering their slaves in an attempt to escape detection.

Why does it still exist? Because superiority is human nature and taking things to extremes is also a part of human nature.

And if you want to talk improvement brought by time - just ten years ago I would have laughed at the notion that more than a tiny handful of Americans would ever accept the notion of torturing their fellow humans. Fast forward to today and not only do many of them accept it, they embrace it - I believe this topic has even been discussed here a time or two.

It is not realistic.

Tell you what. Lets get together in two hundred years. We'll have a few beers, laugh and cry at the extend of human foible. Then we'll set a date for, say, a thousand years from now. We might have something to celebrate then.

Retarded people, sick people and elderly people get all kinds of respect today that they didn't get in earlier times.

No, they have rights and modern medicine has worked out new and improved ways of keeping them alive. This is not the same as respect. Disrespect and worse abound, even today. Fear and quiet loathing are also prevalent.

Too many of you have just not taken the point. You literally cannot conceive of a time when more is expected of a citizen (or a plantation owner or a loving husband or a parent to a crippled child).

There is a huge difference between expectations and what those expectations bring. We aren't all that far from a time when the expectation was that you get married and that's that. No divorce unless you want to be a absolute pariah. Not that marriages weren't problematic and in fairly large percentages. It's just that folks stuck it out.

But along with sticking it out came a great deal of violence, whether physical or verbal. Abuse was not only rampant, but mostly accepted.

But if civilization continues to improve —even if by the fits & starts that so appall us day by day— your cynicism will soon seem as grotesque as the slaver's whip. It is not cute. It is not sophisticated.

You know what Crid, I'll give that we might get there someday. Just as I expect that the same will come of political parties and politics. But this is not going to happen in our lifetimes. It's not going to happen in our children's lifetimes (mine anyways). This is a very slow process that has to mitigate more than thirty thousand years of history and human nature.

Like asking if people are supposed to go hungry, since there won't be slaves to bring in the crops.

Good luck out there, Brian.

DuWayne,
I doff my hat to you for that last comment.
Well said.

98%.

Crid -

Your entire argument boils down to expecting humans to act raionally.

This is something they are genetically predisposed against doing. Humans are not rational beings, they are rationalizing beings.

People aren't responsible because it makes them happy or makes them feel good, they are responsible because the negative consequences are (or at least used to be) highly unpleasant.

In other words, unless you propose a mechanism to force people to be good mates and good parents, it's not likely to happen.

Which leaves the breeding and marrying to the truly devout.

>>98%.

Bitte!

(That's a bilingual and sarky pun, Crid!)

"Next time Amy says that what she actually wants is for the government to give up certifying marriages, you guys'll back me up when I tell her that's wrong. Won't you? Sure you will. Because there's obviously no way you're going to let society stop providing you with family court at no charge."

I'll decline the idea of government not tracking marriages, but not for that reason, mostly because it's wrong.

Family and probate courts exist because the affairs of the public have to be managed somehow by their government. They're not "free" - nothing is - but the alternative is worse.

Again - what do you think would have happened to the kids and the adults in the subject case if court was not available? Just how do you think a government can function at all without organizing its people? It surely isn't a new idea; tribes ancient and modern routinely expect a contribution from every member and an accounting of their worth, including offspring.

So surpluses, both of people and of wealth and food, make it attractive to say that anonymous people should breed as they like without official notice. Wow. You think there's an illegal/unidentified immigrant problem... you're just not thinking.

Say, something's missing.

I propose that every family court determine what the family's costs are going to be in case of a divorce before the court, and then ask the man what to do. Every time. And then do that.

What's the result, and why is that a bad idea?

> the affairs of the public have
> to be managed somehow by their
> government.

But there's nothing "public" about marriage nowadays (but for the drain on publuic coffers, whether the marriage succeeds or fails). Why is the public providing this service for a self-selected class who approach the institution only for their individual interests?

> why is that a bad idea?

Maybe it isn't, except that it doesn't seek to diminsh the problem at the source. And we might as well ask them to pony up at the front door of the wedding chapel, as well as the rear.

more more more chipping away between work projects...

> what do you think would have happened
> to the kids and the adults in the
> subject case if court was not available?

Would it have been any worse for the kids? Or even for the adults?

Presumably if all the F-courts were mysteriously withdrawn into a Star Trek parallel universe at 5:37am PST next Tuesday morning, a lot of single mothers would be pissed at not having {even)the paperwork for child support, and a lot of pathetic, whiny divorced fathers would have less to whine about.

But after a short time, things would probably stabilize at just about the level of wretchedness we have now.

But it wouldn't be on my conscience, and it wouldn't be on my tax rolls.

> tribes ancient and modern routinely
> expect a contribution

I take this point very seriously! I'm all about that! And refute it by noting that there's nothing tribal about the state's relationship to divorcing couples in our culture.

These fucktard pairs as described above come to the courts and claim to be in love, and the court grants them the contract every time. It certainly takes no notice to the sturdiness of the union. It takes no notice of their fitness for each other, of their fitness for children, or of their respect for community interests. If the bloodwork is good, it just notarizes the contract and slips it under the window.

There's no tribe. There are certainly no elders watching out to see that everyone's —Hell, anyone's— interests are being met.

This is why the bitterboyz in this thread(& maybe Tressider) can approach the state without shame. They can mock and ridicule the purposes of the institution, because they know nobody's looking.

This is what I've asked for ten times here, and dozens of times in earlier threads... That people recognize that their behavior has consequences: Not only on the people who they claim (or had once claimed) as most dear to them, but on the rest of the culture as well.

I want people to have good friends and strong families who'll intercede when a poor marriage approaches, and I want the rest of us not to be rubber-stamping them.

I want people to have good friends and strong families who'll intercede when a poor marriage approaches, and I want the rest of us not to be rubber-stamping them.

In other words, you want a return to the Victorian era of arranged marriages. Either that, or you want something that cannot be done. We never had it, and I don't think we ever will unless someone invents a pill that makes people reasonable.

Families intercede now, and are told to fuck off. Friends intercede, and are no longer friends.

Man's pursuit of pussy takes precedence over every rational thing, it seems.

You want for we should physically restrain them? Perhaps put out a contract on the object of their desire?

My friends and I tried to intervene with someone who was in a relationship with a psycho. We all saw it. He didn't. Result? He is now a single father with two messed up children, and we don't see him any more. If I had to guess, it's at least partly because he doesn't want to hear "We told you so."

> In other words, you want a
> return to the Victorian

If I'd meant that, I'd have said it.

That's very Tressider of you... Transcoding a plain-as-dirt point into something scary.

But Jodi herself made great strides in this regard in 2008: She's convincingly attenuated her reflex to prismatically distort the things I say here to align with the simpleton fears of her schoolgirl days. It's saved both of us a lot of time.

But for so long as the January winds howl, Brian, it's not too late for a New Year's resolution! Perhaps you too can willfully contain the simpleton fears of your schoolgirl days.

> he doesn't want to hear "We
> told you so."

Maybe that's something better friends wouldn't say.

Crid -

Either you're speaking at a level that evades my considerable intellect, or you're speaking in code. Because I'll be damned if I can figure out what you're saying. Other than insulting me, that is.

But then again, I've never failed at marriage, so what do I know. Let's look at your situation: had your friends taken you aside and said "Crid, she's just not right for you. This won't end well" what would you have done? I'll tell you what you would have done - you'd have married her anyhow, and not invited that friend to the wedding just to show him.

So tell me how your idea works any better than using public resources to pick up the pieces after the inevitable failure?

> Other than insulting

It not just irritating when some deliberately misreads a plain meaning... It's dull. So we gotta do what it takes to stay awake...

> had your friends taken you aside
> and said

Who knows what would have happened? I wish I'd had more good friends and tight family to have run a test.

Aside from this being another chance for you to exhibit theatrical, over-the-top, transparent-cry-for-help cynicism you've been refining for the last few years, I can't imagine what point you think you're making here. On your world, no one can ever be connected, no one can ever trust, and no pattern in life can be corrected by will. But the saddest person to ever turn on a computer knows a hundred people for whom this is just not so.

So what twisted thrill do you take from encouraging the farcical, expensive, hurtful churnings through marriage that we've had in recent decades?

It would be really great if your answer were interesting, and not mundane.

>>But Jodi herself made great strides in this regard in 2008: She's convincingly attenuated her reflex to prismatically distort the things I say here to align...

Perhaps you could quit reflexively misspelling both my surname and now my first name too, Crid?

I try not to be precious about this - the surname is tricky - but you've always at least managed to correctly copy 'Jody' with a 'y' - until now.

(I'd respond to your comment, but I'm not quite catching your drift.)

You've already decided that whatever I say is uninteresting.

The point I'm making is very simple, while you've made no point at all.

On your world, no one can ever be connected, no one can ever trust, and no pattern in life can be corrected by will.

I'd like to know where you came up with this insight. My point is that people are going to do stupid shit no matter how much "connectedness" they have in their world. Trust is, in fact, the problem here. People trust other people with their emotions too often, and they get hurt. Why? Because they are people, and that's what people do.

So what twisted thrill do you take from encouraging the farcical, expensive, hurtful churnings through marriage that we've had in recent decades?

None at all. I have no dog in the fight. I just find it amusing that you think avoiding bad marriages is so simple that we could dismantle an entire legal system that took 400 years to build just to deal with the problems of poor mate selection.

You're piqued because your tax dollars are being used to sort out other people's emotional train-wrecks. And from this, you conclude that if people weren't so gosh-darned stupid when it came to mate selection, you'd save a pile of cash.

And yet you had to avail yourself of the very legal system you now decry.

Crid -

I've gone back and re-read the whole thread.

These are all from one of your comments.

Crid:

You're absolutely stuck on this. Multiple commenters beg for "an alternative". It's apparently inconceivable that people could be more responsible in mating.

OK, so how do you propose to enforce this responsibility? Or should government stay out of that too?

Crid:

I just don't believe it. People can marry well. I've seen it happen. When they don't, I'm tired of it being a problem for the rest of us.

Great. How about all those that don't? Are you proposing some sort of education system (oops, there's that government thing again, or Amy's favorite bug-bear: Religion). Are you proposing that someone or something act as an arbiter to decide who may mate?

Crid:

Among men (& women) who marry well, avoidance of court intrusion in this manner is nearly perfect.

That's as may be. But the evidence is that better than 50% of all people DON'T marry well. You can argue that they don't work it out because they have the easy out of no-fault divorce, but that only clears up some of them.

But this is the kicker:
Crid:

I have a divorce, and I love it like hell. (No kids.) But please, people, let's not pretend no shame (or responsibility) accrues.

Responsibility to WHOM? And who shall enforce such responsibility? If you're going to be responsible to your fellow citizens to do something (or not), then there will be laws, there will be courts. In short, there will be government.

Unless you want things settled by brute force, which is the only option left once you kick both Church and State to the curb.

Wait - one more.

Crid:

Too many of you have just not taken the point. You literally cannot conceive of a time when more is expected of a citizen (or a plantation owner or a loving husband or a parent to a crippled child).

But who in our modern society has the right to expect ANYTHING of another citizen beyond the minimum obedience to applicable law?

You now cry about the loss of community, when the one and only thing that provided that community has been relegated to second-class status and is a continuous target of ridicule!

Somehow, I suspect I won't see you in church on Sunday, or at Synagogue on Saturday.

I'll tell you what, Crid, you can go back to insulting my intelligence and everything else about my life when you've come up with a logically consistent answer to this question:

Whom shall be granted the privilege of demanding "more" of the citizenry in matters of marriage and children?

Too many of you have just not taken the point. You literally cannot conceive of a time when more is expected of a citizen (or a plantation owner or a loving husband or a parent to a crippled child).

Crid, I totally take the point. I just could not conceive of my husband wanting to shift all of the responsibility for the marriage onto me. And this is what happens time and again, that one person in the marriage turns out to be either a) more responsible, or b) totally irresponsible. In my case, I was forced to be more responsible than I already was because my husband did not want an equal partnership, he wanted ME to do all the work while HE reaped all the benefits. I finally said, oh HELL no, and filed for divorce. I've bitched about this before in previous posts, so won't go into it yet again, but believe me, I am SO much better off now than I was, or would be had I stayed with him. And while I believe living well is the best revenge, I don't wish him any harm; he is, after all, our daughters' father. I do wish he wanted to be more responsible, but he doesn't want to be, not then and not now, and neither I nor the courts can make him be. They can force him to pay child support, and that's really about all. They can't force him to visit them, which, I will grant him, he's been fairly consistent about. I cannot keep him from seeing them, even if he fails to pay child support, because I'm not that mean. I might have the right, but I do not have the heart, to deny visitation. I do have the responsibility to my girls to see to it that they have access to their father, whether they (he and them) want it or not.

> Perhaps you could quit
> reflexively misspelling

My spellings are more funner! Two esses are prettier than two dees, and all the girly Jodys born after about 1970 spell it with an "i"... At least the stateside ones.

> not quite catching your drift.

Used to be, I'd say "Littering has become a problem in urban America", and you'd accuse me of demanding that schoolchildren feed shredded root beer cans to their housepets. You haven't done that nearly as much lately, and it seems like thoughtful restraint on your part.

> you've made no point at all.

If there's no complaint, you can go away.

> I'd like to know where you came
> up with this insight.

Reading far too many of your comments. You think everyone's an asshole, fellating some banyard animal in capital letters, and there's just no point in getting out of bed in the morning. You show up every day to say this over and over:

> people are going to do stupid
> shit no matter how much
> "connectedness" they have

This has not been my experience, nor that of anyone I respect.

> 400 years to build just to deal
> with the problems of poor mate
> selection.

It doesn't work.

> And yet you had to avail
> yourself of the very legal
> system you now decry.

Absolutely. It was waste for everyone, including many distant, uninvolved strangers.

> how do you propose to enforce
> this responsibility?

Fuck it, you're just too thick. Your soul can't function except in an Authoritarian Daddy Enforcement context. It's not worth another round with you. ("But how will you enforce?)

> Community is something people
> create voluntarily. It can't be
> forced or legislated.

Apparently Amy gets it! She understands that the 'force and legislation' of our current arrangement is a grotesque failure. But let's not get carried away... Truth is, our dependence on community gives it righteous power.

> Religion wouldn't have such a
> strong hold over people but for
> that.

Well, that's like saying that the heart wouldn't be such a vital organ if it didn't move the oxygen and nutrients throughout the body....

Yeah! People want stuff from each other. And there ought to be a proper exchange, says me.

> I just could not conceive of my
> husband wanting to

And no friends of yours could either? No one in the family? There was no one in your life (or his) who could see this coming and make the point to you? They all shared your disappointment and surprise precisely?

(In retrospect I wish I'd asked around a little more.)

> shift all of the responsibility
> for the marriage onto me.

Flynne, I adore you, but I take no more interest in the details of your marriage than you should righteously take in mine. Almost everyone out there in the society is a stranger. We are not intimates. We do not and should not take notice of each other's most delicate interior conditions... especially in a court!

(And that's actually is the point that Amy brushes against in the previous comment... I've been waiting for someone to say it all week: Liberty, man! No one can tell me what to do!)

(Ummm... but listen, I'm just head over heels for this one person out there, so give me a certificate to prove how emotionally competent I am... And be quick about it!)

(Ahhh... Wait a sec. All that other stuff I said was wrong, and now I want you [the broader society] to share responsibility for my broken teacup of a heart... As well as my children's shattered household. And if you fuck it up, I'll spend the rest of my life talking about how my society done me wrong and the judge was an asshole.)

I've talked about this fifty times in these comments, but always using different words, so I can't Google-up a link: People like to think of themselves as the dynamic Batmans of their own lives. Fearless and strong! Flying through blackest midnight to sustain goodness in a world that doesn't care! A man alone, with only his wits and daring to protect him from our culture of endless treachery and boundless cruelty!

But then you step back and look at the people, and they're (we're) perhaps the most mutually-reliant and reliably-comforting society the world has ever seen. Heroic loners is the one thing we are NOT.

Of course there are cases of egregious misconduct where marriages need legal dissolution provided by the whole community.

But not in these numbers. Homey, Puh-leeeeeze.

I want people to marry well. You gotta problem widdat?

What you want and what you're likely to get do not converge, Crid. We start from opposite ends of the spectrum. You believe that people are default good. I believe the opposite. History tends to support my view, I'm afraid.

We're never going to get any closer than that.

Supposing you DID manage to get your wish. At some point, there are going to be people that don't want to be part of your community. What do you do about them? What about the offspring of their shattered unions?

Holy shit, this is still going?!?

Crid, I am all for people marrying well. Seriously, I don't think anyone here has anything against that. But what you are asking for is just not feasible. Again, we are talking about human nature. Psychology. A desire not to remain in abusive relatonships - that going for every party of the abusive relationships.

And friends are great, but can only do so much. Most friends are reticent to alienate their friends by telling them their GF sucks ass. They'll make probing statements, gauge reactions and usually accept that you're going to make the mistake regardless and rather than alienating, they ensure they're around to pick up the pieces when it falls apart.

> You believe that people
> are default good.

The record reflects no such belief. Thoughtful critique is readily distinguished from bogus fatalism.

> We're never going to get any
> closer than that.

Agreed! Will you stop being a pest now?