Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!iwtpu!iwsam!kca
From: kca@iwsam.UUCP (archie)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.social
Subject: Re: No fault divorce
Message-ID: <26@iwsam.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Jul-86 11:17:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: iwsam.26
Posted: Fri Jul 18 11:17:54 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jul-86 04:10:43 EDT
References: <1056@watdragon.UUCP> <15040@ucla-cs.ARPA> <4054@sun.uucp> <24@iwsam.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 71
Xref: watmath net.women:11415 net.social:1217
Summary: correct my last posting

In article <24@iwsam.UUCP>, kca@iwsam.UUCP (archie) writes:
> 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 am  happy being
married, 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
>