The plight of divorced dads

National Post ^ | December 08, 2007 | Barbara Kay

[Unassuaged]

From the same post:
“But those who choose not to marry are not entitled to have sexual relations.”

“Government policy doesn’t have to dictate the behavior of individuals.”

—These are opposing views, no?

[JamesP81]

The only sure way to avoid the total destruction of one’s own life (self preservation) is not to get married and not to have children.

There are too many thick skulls on this forum to understand that.

[JamesP81]

From the same post:
“But those who choose not to marry are not entitled to have sexual relations.”

“Government policy doesn’t have to dictate the behavior of individuals.”

—These are opposing views, no?

This is a very interesting question. For a Christian, the first statement is true: sexual relations are not for those without a spouse. So, the answer would seem to be that they are opposing views at least on some level. However, I really don't think it's for the government to regulate. I think it's immoral and bad for society for people to sleep with whoever whenever (this is why we have 70% out of wedlock birth rate in the black community; you can't tell me that's good for anyone), but government regulation of this behavior would be to invite problems later down the road. It would promote an out of control government and wouldn't do anything to solve the problem anyway.

So while I think we'd all be better off if we followed Christian morality on sexual relations, nothing will be accomplished by trying to force it. The job of the Christian is to teach his own views and bring as many people around to his way of thinking. Force of government should not be used as part of that.

As for myself, since I am a Christian, when I start talking about considering leading a single life, that really does mean complete celibacy. I understand fully what I'm getting into here. A non-Christian who has no such constraints has an outlet for his feelings; that's a luxury that I won't have. But if that's how it has to be, then so be it.

[Froufrou]

It really shouldn’t be as difficult as it has become to have a lasting and trusting relationship.

For women, it has to mean that she doesn’t ‘use her wiles’ in any form or fashion to engage a gentleman.

Rather, she should strive for - and here I will sound like Schlafly, much to my own surprise - a lasting beauty that is derived from good personal care and shunning that which is not classic. This is evident in many European women by their appearance.

For men, it has to mean that he will not ‘chase skirts’ and that he will strive to keep a level head as much as possible, choosing carefully who he ‘runs with’ because we are judged by the company we keep.

Yeah, talk is cheap. I still have happy hour and woe is me that occasional steak. But I know it’s not good for me and I’m thankful it’s not some other monkey on my back!

[wardaddy]

But a person's character is pretty much in place by the time they are 25

Not me...I made huge mistakes in my 20s that I have worked to correct for 25 years.

[steadfastconservative]

I am not saying and did not say that the government should regulate people’s sexual behavior. However, from an ethical (as opposed to a legal) point of view, it is wrong for those who are not married to have sexual relations. Moreover, this seemingly private behavior does have public consequences insofar as it weakens marriage and the family. It is no coincidence that divorce rates have soared since the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s. The widespread use of artificial birth control has also contributed to the creation of our “divorce” culture. Spouses who withhold their fertility from each other through the use of contraception are not giving themselves completely to the other, which is what marriage requires. As long as our society continues to exalt self-gratification over self-giving, divorce rates will remain high. After all, many women initiate divorces because they have bought into the notion that people should be allowed to end their marriages if their marriages are “boring” or unfulfilling, or if they aren’t “in love” anymore.

While no-fault divorce laws and biased judges deserve some blame for the rise in divorce rates, the real cause of this increase in divorce was cultural. The rejection of traditional sexual morality, the rise of feminism, and the widespread acceptance of divorce are the root causes of the increase in the divorce rate. After all, it was only after divorce had become socially respectable, that states began passing no-fault divorce laws. Ultimately, the only way that we can begin to redress this problem is by redressing the attitudes that led to it.

[jurroppi1]

Amen brother!

[Froufrou]

SC, thanks for pinging me to your post. I agree with most of what you say, with the exception of ‘artificial contraception.’

I intuit a presupposition on your part that perhaps a woman might take birth control pills without her husband’s permission? Or that she might STOP taking them without permission?

I completely agree what is needed is cultural change.

[Unassuaged]

Many of the problems we have in this area are an overreaction to the ‘old’ way of dealing with marital problems — knock her around and knock her up.

Man beating his wife in public? distasteful yes, would people interfere? Doubt it, it might get you shot as it is ‘none of your business’.
He cheated on you? (not uncommon) — your fault.

We have swung way to far in overcorrection, IMHO.

Of course, that does not apply to anyone on this forum, or any of their ancestors, of course.

[JamesP81]

I am not saying and did not say that the government should regulate people’s sexual behavior. However, from an ethical (as opposed to a legal) point of view, it is wrong for those who are not married to have sexual relations. Moreover, this seemingly private behavior does have public consequences insofar as it weakens marriage and the family.

I agree completely. Only a return to tradtional, Christian values will solve the problem. And when that day comes, I might consider finding someone to spend my life with and marry her. Right now, it isn't looking so good.

[RogerFGay]

And it was just that easy to come up with an example. I wasn't even looking. This guy doesn't know how lucky he is; getting things taken care of in such a short period of time. Note however - the more common - he called the Attorney General's office and got the run around. Even when the TV station called, they heard - it takes time to work this out. But then the AG reacted to the bad publicity and promised to get the problem fixed quickly.

This is by far not the worst story - this guy actually got the problem fixed and rather quickly. Others have taken their cases to states' high courts and have been told there is no remedy - they have to keep paying.

[RogerFGay]

It really shouldn’t be as difficult as it has become to have a lasting and trusting relationship.

As far as I can tell, we've lost a lot over the past half century - things are not the same as they were when I was young. I suppose many generations may have said the same thing. Catholic tradition of course, is that once you're married, your stuck. That's it. You have no choice but to work things out - or you're done. Use it well, or lose it.

One of the great problems now is the extent to which the government punishes men for being involved - in just about anything in any way - their risks are very high. I've been around in the world, to the extent that I am now rather accurately labeled an international. I have noticed that much of the youth of oppressive regimes end up with rather dead attitudes about relationships. Once the personal becomes political, it's only a matter of time before the heart dies.

[Froufrou]

Once the personal becomes political, it's only a matter of time before the heart dies.

Yes, and how sad. I've noticed that young marrieds today often do not pool their resources, choosing instead to maintain separate accounts. I don't comprehend this, as my own dear spouse is very generous to me, which I imagine is due to my usually frugal nature.

[RogerFGay]

which I imagine is due to my usually frugal nature.

That leads to a general comment. I've noticed that a lot of women don't get that their own behavior has any impact on a relationship; or the behavior of their partners. It's the weirdest thing. They judge the "relationship" which is supposed to happen while a guy is completely unresponsive, while at the same time finding a way not to appear to be ... It's just weird. If they don't respond ... what is that ... like, watching TV? Nothing to do with a real relationship.

PS: Hope you don't mind that I talk about women this way. I'm a guy, so of course I have the opportunity to observe women in relationships ... not the same opportunity to observer other guys.

[NattieShea]

"[My kids]'ve lived happily in one house all their lives and gone to school here too,"

I can only think of two of my friends (past & present) who have intact families. Makes me feel blessed and incredibly lucky. Thank you Daddy

(Carry_Okie is my Dad)

[Froufrou]

I've noticed that a lot of women don't get that their own behavior has any impact on a relationship;

Yes, you're right. Many women can and will squander a ridiculous amount on mani/pedis, facials, saunas, massages. That's fine, if your man gets equal or better. Why do I say better? Because men are more valuable...ask any society.

With one exception: one Asian country has a shortage of women. I imagine that must be China, by now. Just guessing. I saw only a brief spot about it. Oh, and I'm frugal because of my German heritage.

[Gene Eric]

>> >> “Do not marry and do not have children.”

>> It’s hard to take someone seriously when they spout idiocy like this.

I agree. It was an unfortunate ending to an otherwise important message.

[Gene Eric]

>> Keep a clear head and read the signs.
>> Perhaps the best advice posted on this thread. Well said.
>> (Married 22 years last August, and the secret is - sorry, guys - COMMUNICATION, even when it’s tough).

yup.

[BJungNan]

And the obvious retort to his advice is: not everyone makes the same poor choice of a spouse that he did.

Some people consider their choice of a spouse the most important decision they will ever make in their lives - because it is.

I can't argue with you on either of those points. You made them well. My read is less literal than yours but I've been known to be wrong once before. FReepRegards!

[RogerFGay]

I've given the 50-50 custody idea more thought since you brought it up. I must say that my own research work has been focused on developing child support decision theory - i.e. actually raising the mathematics to a real scientific level. I haven't given the politics of 50-50 sharing all that much thought. The theory of child support decisions needed to be general enough to work in all cases; and therefore could not be based on a presumption about the custody arrangement.

In a way though, I can certainly see the 50-50 arrangement as a concrete expression of the idea that the parental rights of both parents remain intact. It says that courts should treat the relationship between children and each parent equally. I'm not going to try to act like an expert in the argument from this point - as indicated, I haven't given it so much thought. But it seems then that a decision to deviate from 50-50 sharing might more often be based on finding one parent who sees the arrangement as being impractical - i.e. who voluntarily gives up some of their own presumptive half share of the children's time; and the acceptance of the other to compensate with greater time spent caring for the children.

If it worked that way, it would far less imposing the will of one parent or the state on another parent against that parent's will.