Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our discussion forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
It was edited, thanks...

Last edited by Enlightened_Ex; 01/05/11 04:31 PM.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Is it the reduction of negative outcomes or more steering the negative outcomes in a certain path?

I.E. one cannot do away with negative outcomes because if one does, one eliminates consequences and without consequences, negative behaviors will continue.

If one things being a prostitute is bad for society, then the consequence of such an action should be a painful consequence. (Painful doesn't mean stoning, so perhaps costly would be a better term.)

Likewise, if being a patron of such services is also deemed bad by the society, then that too should have a costly consequence.

Unfortunately, we seek to remove more and more consequences and then, as a society, wonder why we have more bad behavior and not less.

No fault divorce wasn't designed to make divorce easier, it was designed to make it more honest. Sadly, by removing some of the societal costs to divorce, you end up with more divorce and the unintended consequence is more broken families.

So it's no wonder that banks don't feel they should be held accountable and they should be bailed out if things go bad. So by bailing them out, you shield bankers from the consequences of their choices. Ditto with car makers, or folks who choose to become addicted to drugs, or who don't do their best in school.

What are the unintended consequences of legalizing prostitution? Because if prostitution has a social cost, making it legal will not eliminate that cost. It will simply shift it from one part of society to another.

I for one and getting tired of having to shoulder the costs for other peoples bad behavior. If you want to know why you have less good behavior and more bad behavior, of any sort of behavior, it's likely because the benefits of participating in the good behavior appeal to few than the benefits of participating in the bad behavior. So if the consequences of bad behavior are shifted from the individual to a society as a whole, you end up with a society that drops it's social standards to the lowest common denominator.

You discount good and remove the consequences for the bad, you are going to get more bad and less good.

Originally Posted by holdingontoit
I guess if it is going to be criminal, then it should be criminal for everyone involved. But I don't think equalizing the field to make it more criminal is going in the right direction.

My point is not that there is no suffering among prostitutes in Amsterdam or Nevada. My point is that their suffering is orders of magnitude less severe than in countries where a woman who is accused of prostitution would be stoned, burned alive, etc.

All life is risk. People die being miners, loggers, firemen, etc. Heck, people die staying home sitting on the sofa. You cannot eliminate all negative utcomes from any activity. The quesiton is how to reduce them. As regards prostitution, legalization will lead to lower risk for most prostitutes.

What it will also lead to is more prostitution. I would think that is the primary objection of most prohibitionists. They want to minimize the amount of vice, pretty much regardless of the cost. To them, the moral aspect of minimizign sin outweighs any calculation of costs and benefits of various sets of regulation.

It's because of that cost shifting. If you could guarantee that the costs of such a decriminalization are only paid by those who engage in prostitution or whatever activity, then I think more would be for it. Not all, as there are some who don't look at it this way.

But there are those like myself who are getting fed up with the costs of other people's choices being shifted to me. I'm tired of paying for the drop-out, the baby-mama with a dozen baby-daddy-drama's in her life, or the health care for the one who chose to buy a new car every other year instead of paying for insurance, or any number of other personal decisions that folks expect others to fund.
Originally Posted by holdingontoit
Same with drugs. If you take into account the cost of prosecution, incarceration, crime to fund drugs, drive by shootings of innocent bystanders, and bribes to politicians and law enforcement, any cost / benefit analysis is going to show that legalizing drugs will reduce human misery. Even if more people do drugs and ruin their lives through addiction. But many people still oppose legalization. Presumably because they oppose any increase in the use of drugs, and find it morally reprehensible to engage in such a cost / benefit analysis.

Or because they see that once you legalize it, you further add to the costs that are being shifted to society as a whole. Wanna smoke dope, fine. But if you get someone killed, or lose your job, or whatever, you are on your own.

I have no problem with making things legal. What I dislike is the lack of responsibility for those decisions.

Bringing it back to MB, if you want to either be a prostitute, or use one and are married, then you understand that if your spouse catches you, he/she can have everything associated with the marriage due to your participation in bad behavior.

If you turn tricks while married, you can lose your house, your kids, your retirement funds, everything that was accumulated during the marriage. If you visit a prostitute while married, the same applies.

But few want any sort of accountability on marital behavior or any real consequences for the victims of marital misconduct.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,352
N
Member
OP Offline
Member
N
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,352
EE, I think your cause/effect conclusions are seriously flawed.

Given that:

- Most divorces are initiated by women.
- Most (almost all?) divorces are driven, or at least partially caused, by infidelity,
- Divorces would be initiated by the injured party

I come to the conclusion that terminal marital issues predominently are caused by male infidelity.

You, for some reason decide that divorces are planned, like military campaigns, to be implemented at the moment the attacker is stongest, and the defender weakest. Trust me when I tell you that Sun-Tzu was a military leader, not a marriage expert, but people, as you note, will tend to act in their perceived best) interest.

So........

Young couple, young children - husband fools around - wife decides she can't envision staying with proven slimeball - young enough to make alternative life - wife files.

Older couple - no dependent children - husband fools around - wife doesn't like her alternatives - HUSBAND enjoys younger AP, chance for second family - husband files.

I do enjoy your proposal about "the unfaithful spouse loses everything", if only for the naivete that you exhibit. It will not be implemented legally because the lawmakers (male and female) are the dominant partners in their own marriages, and are the most likely to stray. In their own self-interest, and to protect their colleagues, they'll never institute draconian punishment against themselves.

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,803
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,803
Originally Posted by Enlightened_Ex
Further, if there is NO misconduct, but a spouse simply isn't happy anymore, the desire to divorce a FAITHFUL spouse is in fact treated as an act of marital misconduct and that spouse loses everything as if they had betrayed their spouse. Which they are betraying them if they say, I'm not happy, I no longer want to be married to you.

I'm curious as to what options you're leaving open for someone who is in an unhappy marriage with a person who refuses to meet their needs? Aren't we always telling waywards who come here that if their marriages were unhappy and not fulfilling, then they should have gotten a divorce instead of having an A? If the unhappy person can do neither, then what would you have them do? They can't have an A, because it's morally wrong, and under your scenario, they would lose everything if they did. But they also can't leave their spouse, because they would also lose everything if they did that. So their only choice is to stay in a perpetually unhappy marriage, never have their needs met, and be miserable for the rest of their lives.

One possible solution would be to get their spouses onboard with MB and get them to meet the needs of the unhappy spouse, but we all know there are a lot of reluctant spouses out there who just aren't willing to do that.


Me: BS/FWW: 48
BS/WH: 50
DS: 30, 27, 25
DD: 28
OC: 10
BH and I are raising my OC together.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
That's an interesting question. Perhaps there should be a provision for an unbiased party to examine the marriage and see if there really is a problem with one or both spouses.

After all, apparently many folks can be happy without a great deal of their needs being met, others, not so much. Ask any betrayed spouse and they will almost always tell you the things they were doing to show love to their spouse, so I wonder how much of the unhappiness is simply the spouse not doing the right things.

There has to be some value assigned to the vow. If someone says they'll stay through sickness and health, riches or poor, good times or bad, I don't see how leaving because you are unhappy is honoring that vow. But one promises to love, honor and cherish, and if someone refuses to meet someone's needs, then a case can be made they are not loving, honoring, or cherishing.

The problem I have with the current system is there is no impartial examination of the facts surrounding the case. If someone says they are unhappy, that's good enough for the system.

That's certainly not sufficient and doesn't foster strong family bonds.

I tend to believe that the vow is more important than any individual's happiness because the choice to end the marriage impacts more than just the person choosing to end the marriage. If they knew they would lose everything, would their calculus to determine if leaving was a good move may change.

They may be more motivated to do a better job at working on their marriage. We cannot assume that just because they want to leave that it means their spouse is the largest problem. It could just as likely be unrealistic expectations. Too many Disney movies or Hallmark Channel movies, and not enough living in the real world.

You know, the emotional porn that sets up the same sorts of unrealistic expectations as does the sexual porn that distorts the thinking of many men.

So I think you set the costs high, and folks will pick more carefully, and/or work harder because they have so much to lose if they simply want out without there being any marital misconduct.

Especially when there are children involved. The happiness of one of the adults shouldn't be the primary factor in determining if the family stays together. That simply send the message to the young children that you are entitled to your happiness at all costs, including costing your spouse his place in the life of the child.

Marriage is such a critical aspect in raising good children that it should be treated special, and above the individual happiness.

Dr Harley says nothing should be done with the joint agreement of both spouses. So I believe we apply that to any marriage where there is no abuse, adultery or addiction. If one wants out, but the other doesn't, the POJA says nothing changes until both agree to the change. You do nothing, which means no divorce.

I'm sure that's tough for some to swallow. However, I take my vows seriously, and they are not about my happiness, but what I am to offer my wife.

For me to say I'm leaving for me is to indeed betray my wife, and is in fact an act of marital misconduct. It is breaking the vow, and I believe should be treated as so.

I would concede that the abandoned spouse could offer assets, more parenting time, or whatever, should he want to. But in no way should an abandoned spouse be compelled to offer the runaway spouse anything other than a suitcase full of clothes and their 1/2 of any marital debts.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Any typos you find above are yours to keep. There are many smile

Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,459
Likes: 9
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,459
Likes: 9
EE,

Did you know that you can edit your own posts for about a day after you post them?

There is an edit button at the bottom of your own posts. I just mention it because I saw that JustUss edited the post I mentioned above.


BW
Married 1989
His PA 2003-2006
2 kids.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Yes, I changed mine seeing that I could still edit. The moderators edited the post that quoted that information.

I was thinking of a different board that gave you about 15 minutes before the edit timed out and/or you only had so long before you could delete the post.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Originally Posted by NeverGuessed
EE, I think your cause/effect conclusions are seriously flawed.

Given that:

- Most divorces are initiated by women.
Agree
Originally Posted by NeverGuessed
- Most (almost all?) divorces are driven, or at least partially caused, by infidelity,
Debateable, Dr Harley says marriages can survive infidelity and I'd like to politely remind you that he is surprised by the fact that most of those who suffer such abuses don't file. Most of those filing are NOT victims of such, so I'm not sure how you can cling to your thinking here.
Originally Posted by NeverGuessed
- Divorces would be initiated by the injured party
I think that's where you are missing the boat. You are excluding what Dr Harley is saying, that the majority of divorces filed by women are filed by those who are NOT the injured party.

In fact, it's more likely that the injured party is further victimized by a divorce he never wanted.
Originally Posted by NeverGuessed
I come to the conclusion that terminal marital issues predominently are caused by male infidelity.
And you say I'm naive and misguided. OK
Originally Posted by NeverGuessed
You, for some reason decide that divorces are planned, like military campaigns, to be implemented at the moment the attacker is stongest, and the defender weakest. Trust me when I tell you that Sun-Tzu was a military leader, not a marriage expert, but people, as you note, will tend to act in their perceived best) interest.

So........

Young couple, young children - husband fools around - wife decides she can't envision staying with proven slimeball - young enough to make alternative life - wife files.

Older couple - no dependent children - husband fools around - wife doesn't like her alternatives - HUSBAND enjoys younger AP, chance for second family - husband files.

I do enjoy your proposal about "the unfaithful spouse loses everything", if only for the naivete that you exhibit. It will not be implemented legally because the lawmakers (male and female) are the dominant partners in their own marriages, and are the most likely to stray. In their own self-interest, and to protect their colleagues, they'll never institute draconian punishment against themselves.

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]


"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer

"Fair speech may hide a foul heart." - Samwise Gamgee LOTR
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 688
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 688
writer1,

That's easy to solve. The unhappily married person divorces. They simply walk away with the clothes and minor assets and start over. No alimony, child support or splitting house $. Also, you pay child support.

If women waited until the kids were grown like men, the divorce would most likely be more amicable. Would it feel like you are in prison for years? Possibly, but you at least have integrity being faithful and grinding it out until the kids are gone. Most marriages can be put on sort of a coast mutually agreeable term. People who say they are miserable with their S might find it interesting that their spouse might be feeling the same way.

This is not pointed at you writer, and by all means my W might be miserable as H---, but she seems to want this M more than I. I use to want the M more than she did, so the table has turned in our M, I just wish it would've turned sooner.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
2 members (2 invisible), 51 guests, and 56 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
purple17, cbm800, Dodo M, Kingpin, MikaylaVaux
71,729 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics133,547
Posts2,322,793
Members71,730
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2020, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.  |  Web Development by SunStar Media.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5