Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!iwsam!kca
From: kca@iwsam.UUCP (archie)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.social
Subject: Re: No fault divorce
Message-ID: <24@iwsam.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Jul-86 17:22:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: iwsam.24
Posted: Tue Jul 15 17:22:01 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Jul-86 04:46:21 EDT
References: <1056@watdragon.UUCP> <15040@ucla-cs.ARPA> <4054@sun.uucp> <192@wheaton>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 69
Xref: watmath net.women:11344 net.social:1206
Summary: marriage:happy or not

In article <192@wheaton>, bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes:
> 
> 	 I'd like to say at the start that I'm glad Bill Davidsen
> 	 shared his opinions to the net about what he has 
> 	 observed in marriage.  It's good to hear from someone
> 	 who has been married for 23 years...
> 
> 	 Now let me rip into him!
> 
> In article <826@steinmetz.UUCP>, davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP writes:
> > In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes:
> > >In article <5950@sri-spam.ARPA>, gds@sri-spam.UUCP writes:
> > >> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy?
> > >> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now?
> > >> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same
> > >> person)?
> > 
> > Why is it that marriage is one topic on
> > which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as
> > gospel?
> 
> 	Wait!  Hold on!  I have accouple of things to say:
> 
> 	Firstly, isn't it alittle bit strong to call people 'losers'
> 	in marriage. Why? Just becasue they haven't reached the 'high-level'
> 	or marriage that you have?  Do you think you're better than them?

> > People can probably be called 'losers' if their marriages failed
> > i.e. ended in divorce.  Some people are sensitive to calling their
> > marriages failures or saying that they personally failed because
> > they got divorced.  I think it's like getting fired from a job:
> > it may not be all your fault, there may be extenuating circumstances,
> > but it's not what you would call a success.
> >		I don't think that I am better than anyone else because I have
> >  a happy marriage and he/she doesn't.  Although I have a happy
> > marriage, I don't think everyone should be married, I don't make
> > speeches about what an oppressive and demeaning state being single
> > is, and I am reasonably sick of single people making similar
> > speeches about marriage.  I think relationships/marriages should be
> > evaluated (if you need to do that) in the instant cases, not in the
> > general case.
> 
> 	Secondly, just because I'm not married yet doesn't mean I don't
> 	have valid points or opinions.  In fact, I didn't see anything in
> 	your article that disputed any of my points (since I have 10
> 	of them you'd think you'd at least hit one :-))

> > I agree, since most people have some basis for comparison in the
> > marriages of the people around them.  However, I know a lot more
> > about marriage now that I have been married for a few years, a
> > point that seems to be lost on people that have never been married.
> >
> > I missed your original article so don't know what the 10 points were.
> 
> 	Quite the contrary, you agree that physical attraction is not
> 	the major point of importance and seem to agree with me that
> 	no one side is dominant - that both sides give in alittle.
> 
> 	So what's the problem?
> 
> 	Please, don't set yourself up as being virtuous because you
> 	resisted the temptation to respond.

> > Why not?

> 	If you have something to say to me then fire away, I'm ready.
> 
> 			Still happily awaiting marriage,
> 			Bill Bagot