Poll: What Methods Would Decrease Adultery? - Marriage Builders® Forums

Marriage Builders

I have been thinking today about how much our society has changed in the area of accepting behaviors that were once looked upon as immoral and wrong.I wonder what it would take to get adultery back up there in the ranks of something that is looked down on by society and those participating hang their heads in shame?My personal preferance is the return of the scarlet letter. Yeah, I'm pretty old fashioned. [Linked Image from marriagebuilders.com]

What methods do you think it would take to put a stop to the rise of infidelity and have it viewed as it once was in days gone by? Rather than the *oh well* stuff happens attitude many look at adultery with today.Just CuriousFingers Crossed

Hmmmm... Good discussion question. I'll have to do some thinkin' about this. Perhaps the scarlet letter is a bit too ... permanent?------------------ terri I believe in miracles...

Although I don't think one can make adultry illegal (unfortunately), I do think we can have a legitimate scartlet letter type system. How? Well, adultry or even EA's highly impact a persons ability to function properly intellectually and rationally. It also shows very low integrity on the pursuers part. The pursued gets trapped with intoxication, and their professional life too is adversely impacted. So, how about a system similar to a credit system - one where someone proven to be having an affair can be posted on the system. Employers could review this, and legally make hire/fire decisions from it because of the impact it has on work/integrity - both things an employer has a right to expect are the highest quality possible.That would stop a lot of people. The consequenses would be just too great. But, you'd have to be sure before posting someone there - because your name would have to be listed as the poster, and if you are wrong you can be seriously sued.SamH

Fingers Crossed,Wow! What a good question.Well,I don't think I have any answers, but I do think I know some one of the causes:People are increasingly less willing to take responsibility for their own actions.Every one ever arrested blames their crime on their parents, or where they grew up, or the crummy school they went to. Everyone is to blame but themselves. The betrayer had to have the affair because their needs were not being met by the betrayed. It's so easy. Why take responsibility for your actions when you can just blame them on someone or something else.How do you fix that? Don't know. Better parents, family values, church, etc?Oh well that's my two cents!

hehehehehe..... Just thought of another one. Bring fault back into divorce bigger and better than before.You committ adultery you:1) Loose custody of your children2) You will pay spousal support untill your spouse remarries.3) You are 100% responcible for the support of any children until they are 21 or no longer a full time student.4)The innocent spouse gets all of the marrital possesions and monies. (including marital home)5) The adulteror gets all the marrital debt.And naturally the need to work thier buns off to support the whole thing. [Linked Image from marriagebuilders.com]

Along with this the Alienation of Affections law should be put back on the books in all the states. That way the OP will be less inclined to participate in an affair that could cost them everything they own.I like this one as much as the scarlet letter. [Linked Image from marriagebuilders.com]

Fingers Crossed

I've actually heard that, in some cultures, men have a "free" day during which they can have (safe) sex w/ as many willing women as they can find... This supposedly gets it out of their systems for the year. Having also heard that men are, by nature, polygamous, this almost sounds like a logical "solution" and much less painful to the wife than a sexual nee emotional affair with a specific woman. (PS Not to run a commercial for myself, but please see my "Like a Persistant Fungus" post; I'm messing up bad and need help fast; thanks!)

SamH, Actually, adultery is illegal in a few states, but prosecution for it is probably nil.

I'm all in favor of Fingers Crossed's suggestion(Just thought of another one) ... 200%... yep double it!Jim

Sorry, boys and girls, but the employer 'blacklist' idea won't work. Nobody cares enough, or they know that they could be accused of same.Look at our Philanderer-In-Chief. His employers (us) have had several opportunities to fire his sorry a$$, but we just pat him on the head and say, "Hey, what are interns for anyway?"

Who says society is any more accepting of "immoral" behavior than it once was? I don't even believe it is any more common.I was reading some sort of a study on the topic a doctor had done in his area. Using blood tests, he determined something like 5 to 10% of the children under his care were not fathered by their apparent father. Now, that sounds pretty typical. Most people would think the number was a bit low. But he did this in the 60's in a white-collar neighborhood! One in 20 people you know doesn't know who their real father is. And that seems about as immoral as anything going on today, if you ask me.I think all that happens is as you get older, you just get to experience first hand all the things your parents already know about but won't talk about.I think the real big change is the divorce rate. The liberalization of divorce has drastically increased the number of divorces. But my guess is that has actually cut down on the, shall we say, "adultery rate". Now you can divorce your cheating bum husband or wife if you want. Before you needed proof, and that was very hard to get. Or if you are a cheater, you can divorce your partner to be with your lover. In the end that is probably much more fair than sneaking around until "death do us part."I suppose that birth control has affected society in profound ways too. Now women can go to college and what not BEFORE they get pregnant. It's really changed women's ability to control their own life. Well, I suppose abstinence would have too, but how likely was that?I think in some ways society is more moral now than it's ever been. I mean, people actually concerned about the fact that there won't be any more lions or elephants or maybe even whales in 50 years? Concern for the environment? Humane prisons? Animal rights? Medicare for everyone, regardless of there financial success? A social safety net for the poor? Conservation? Recycling? A movement to end the use of nuclear weapons and land mines? These are all "new" morals that society probably didn't have as strongly in the 50's as it does now, if at all. Sure we have a bit of pornography. Back then they had their mistresses and prostitutes.But any way, my vote on the poll is "you can't legislate good character".

Fingers crossed,You hit the nail on the head.In most states no fault divorces are the norm. It matters not wht the cause. Fix that and watch things change!!!!

Your question answeres itself...The "world" ie society has accepted adultry as acceptable behavior...We as people within society, must stop co-signing adulterous behavior...We as a society must eliminate moral "gray" areas...We as a society must stop enabling our friends that are in the grips of infidelity by ending friendships w/those in an affair... How many of us, before we fell into our situations. Had friends in an affair and did nothing but turn the other cheek, for fear of loseing that friendship... I am ashamed to admitt it, I did... We as a society must place the value of a monogomous marriage just below our faith in God...One man one woman becoming one...We as a society must stop with our narcisistic ways...This is redundant; we as a society must become selfless...I believe if we could reverse the trend of imorality, adulters would once again become the decadent in our society, therefore making it something we would choose not to do.caveat: in no way am I intending to offend my friends here that are betrayers. IMO you are some of the finest people its been my privlege to know.BillIrish BlessingMay the roads rise to meet you, May the winds always be at your back, May the sun shine warm upon your face, The rains fall soft upon your fields, And until we meet again, May god hold you In the hollow of his hand.------------------ BB

It sure would have helped if something, anything, had been done with Clinton.Now we watch Monica on diet commercials ....Imagine Hillary's pain.How about a scarlett tatoo ?Seriously, I think we're on a better track when the offender is somehow financially responsible, once convicted.

Hillary has no pain.Shes mad because he almost got them evicted.My opinion...------------------ BB

I don't know if there will ever be anything in our society that will deter adultery. But, there are countries that have zero drug problem because if you are caught with drugs, you are shot. Now, there's a deterrent. I bet if adultery was considered justifiable homicide, you'd see the rate immediately plummet!!

I know some of you want to blame it all on Clinton, but infidelity has been around long before Clinton. And anyone who thinks he got off "scot-free" ought to take another look. Here's a man, 50-some-odd, who's had a very successful presidency, and all he's going to be remembered for is Monica.But I digress.I don't think infidelity is any more "accepted" than it used to be, it's just become easier for those who betray to get a "no-fault" divorce.Take a look at most movies involving a "grand passion" -- the kind of thing people mean when they say "I want that 'in-love' feeling." Go all the way back to the beginning of the film industry, and most great movie romances involve infidelity. But because the wife is played by the second-tier actress and the lover is played by Rita Hayworth, or Ingrid Bergman, or Kristin Scott-Thomas; or on the other hand, the husband is played by Paul Henried while the lover is Humphrey Bogart; well, they make it easy for the viewer to decide who they're rooting for.I would love to see a movie where a long-married couple is still chasing each other around the kitchen table and tearing each other's clothes off.I don't think there's more of it; it's just more up-front that it used to be.

I had to chime in on this one:Pretty much all I see is "punishment" and it's societies fault...You want to cut down on adultery?? Take a training course in "MarriageBuilders" as a requirement for marriage. Learn the skills. Have refresher courses. Positive reinforcement always works better...

I agree with Fingers Crossed. If they want to play, make them pay!Television and Newspapers can make a impact on our world. Reporters can make or break a story that can create socially accepted or rejected values. I can "see" the front page story complete with pictures, with a caption something like this "Adultery is motivation for movement from Park Avenue to Park Bench"Addition: **************************Ok, I can agree with the thought that we need to rise above our childish feelings and work on forgiveness. If my H thought that his actions would be splashed on the front page for the world to see, I think he would change his actions.I still feel the need to punish the guilty party. I'm not saying that anyone else should feel this way. This is how I feel and I can't honestly post any other feelings or I would be lying.If the guilty spouse knew they were risking everything then maybe they would try to work on the marriage instead of transfering the affection to another person. The old divorce laws required a reason to divorce, also a one year waiting (cooling off) time. Research has shown that most people regret the divorce within the first year and wish they had tried to save the marriage. I'm not trashing the OW or OM. I don't put the blame on the OW. I think she is as much a victim as I am. I can't befriend her, but I don't want to hang her from the nearest tree either. That's a major improvement in my thinking, [Linked Image from marriagebuilders.com]

thanks to this board. Maybe the guilty spouse can be considered a victim too. That's too deep a subject for me to delve into at this point in my life. [This message has been edited by Keosha (edited January 26, 2000).]

We all want to find a way to "make them pay" for "what they did to us", but that's just not the way it works. It's not illegal. It's a personal matter. It's up to you to keep it out of your life or allow it in. If you don't want somebody cheating on you the answer is simple: Kick them out. It's all the recourse you need. Any good justice system is based on protecting the innocent and minimizing damages, not on punitive measures. So go ahead, protect yourself. It's your right. You don't have to tolerate this sort of behaviour.

Hey Guys, I don't want to sound rude but if you remember there are adulterers on this board and I know that a few have been upset by this. Please try to think about their feelings. We want them to feel welcome to post and learn and get support as much as we do. If we hurt them, they may leave. Then what has been accomplished?Yes, my H is in the middle of an affair and I have hard feelings for the OW. But to say what I think her punishment should be here might hurt too many others. Should the ones who are here receive the same punishment you have recommended? I don't think so and I don't think you do either. Again, my reason for posting this is not to anger anyone or offend anyone. We all need to stop and think about what was posted though.Thanks, Mitzi

Good point.As an analogy, I think the reason all the churches are empty these days (it's not the astounding lack of evidence, most people don't need or want evidence), is because they spend so much time childishly describing all the pain and suffering God is going to deal out to all the sinners. Suddenly everybody wakes up and says, wait a minute, I'm a sinner too. Try forgiveness. It does you more good than them.In the words of the big J.C. himself, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." We'll be seeing a lot of us walk away from the party right about now I bet, just like the stoning party did back then.The desire to see someone else suffer is always childish. It is the fruit of anger, jealousy, and insecurity. The desire to see someone grow is of a mature heart. That is the fruit of generosity, love, and forgiveness.

MitziMy intention was not to insult or hurt anyone by this post. To be very honest I didn't even think of the people who post here, who have committed adultery, as being included in that group since they are here trying to work on their marriages.I was NOT looking at ways to *punish* aduterors. I was looking at deterants.I would think anyone who has committed adultery might have excellent input into what would have kept them from crossing that line.I was under the impression the folks who post here are trying to work on their marriages using Dr. Harley's methods, at least in part. Am I wrong in this belief? I would think anyone who is here, that has committed adultery, understands what they did is wrong and most likely feel terrible about their actions, and are trying to reverse the situation. These are not the people this post applies to. It is more so the people who have an affair, boast about it, leave their families, and do NOT return.If I offended anyone I do apologize. FC nonplusedAgain, punishment was not my motivation. I was hoping to get some ideas as to what would be good deterants be they, social, economic, or moral. Grass roots campaigns have started in stranger places than web sites. [Linked Image from marriagebuilders.com]

Years ago OW/M were ashamed of their actions and affairs with married people were kept in the closet. Today OW/M have their own web sites to brag about their conquests. When fault was present in divorce law the adulterous spouse paid dearly finacially and generaly lost custody of their children. Today many walk away leaving their spouse in emotional and financial ruin and have the kids for overnight visitation while they sleep with their lover in the next room, while still married to their children's other parent. These things tell me there is something VERY wong in our society and our judicial system. No, one cannot make people have morals. However society as a whole and the courts can do things to encourage people to think twice by the way their actions are percieved and dealt with.I meant no harm to anyone.Again I apologize for stepping on any toes.FC

A friend of mine had his first W cheat on him,and take half of everything(community property state).When he married his second W,he had a pre-nup written up that states whoever cheats on who,only gets 10% of their assets.Sounds fair to me,and a good deterrant. --Murph

exellent point K it is that simple.------------------ BB

FC,I didn't think the original intention was to hurt anyone's feelings. It was worded as basically a question about society. I know that alot of the betrayed who post here have feelings of anger about the OP. I'm one of them. I do know that some of the posts have been upsetting to some of the betrayers that read and post here. And that's understandable too. I just thought that the tone of some of the posts was a little harsh. And could be taken the wrong way by some. I didn't mean to imply that the question couldn't be asked. It is a very thought provoking question. And I agree with K. Instead of blaming anyone for the infidelity in marriages, I think an MB course or something similar needs to be a requirement for anyone who wants to get married. It would save a lot of pain.No hard feelings at all, FC!Mitzi

I wish fingers crossed was the judge in my up-coming divorce!

Don't worry about offending someone by what you say-it will inhibit you from saying what you think, expressing how you feel and keep you from giving your opinions.This forum is to help us repair broken marriages and to help us heal ourselves and each other, to give comfort, support and advice to others. It is also here to allow us to vent and rage. None of us want to hurt or offend other MB Members. And I know it is not anyone's intent to do so simply by expressing their thoughts and feelings. Don't worry about it! Say what you think and feel. Rage and vent if you must. that's what the board is all about...to help us get through this and to find comfort and answers from each other.None of us should have to walk on eggshells scared to say what's on our minds for fear of offending or upsetting someone. We're all grown ups here and we can take it. it's just someone's opinion and they are entitled to it. We're not delicate little flowers. We are more like warriors surviving the battle.Unless someone has been vicious and to harm someone was the intent, no one need apologize for what they think or feel.

Hi K!As usual, your advice is sound. Ya gotta be careful about that pre-wedding counseling, though. If it's TOO realistic, no one would ever get married!Ooops! 'Cynical Doug' got loose again!"Bad Doug! Bad boy! Now, get back in your cage!... Bad Dougie!..."There. I'm OK now. [Linked Image from marriagebuilders.com]

There are some truly terriffying suggestions here... I am very glad we do not deal so harshly with people for there mistakes as many of these posts would suggest. I would not like to see people pay for thier mistakes by not being able to get employment, destroying thier ability to function fiscially in the world, or by tieing a permanent yoke around their neck. People make mistakes. Repeat offenders? I think these people build up enough bad karma that they get it hard in the end anyhow.------------------ "Remeber that every now and then you need to stop and eat the roses." -Bill The Cat

FC - Just to answer your question. Some statistics I've read indicate that adultery is a factor in over 90% of marriages that have lasted 5 years or longer. And based on the stories I've read on this and other forums, I'm inclined to agree. This means there's something seriously wrong with the institution of marriage itself, and that it needs to change radically. (I have a lot of ideas that I'm not going to go into right now.)The problem with the "scarlet letter" approach is that, in most cases, the adultery remains a secret. The few adulterers who are exposed becomes scapegoats and the problem is, effectively, swept under the rug. (Probably the person sewing the letter on an adulteress is sitting on just as bad a secret.)Anyway, my $.02. Regards and blessings,--Wex

All of the methods described above presumes that a person having an affair is actually in their right mind and is always thinking about the consequences before hand. From what I've seen, people having affairs are not thinking. The death penalty has done little or nothing to stop murder, for instance. Also, infidelity is just one of many risks one undertakes when getting married, along with bankruptcy, serious illness, and so on. That is life,unfortunately. You roll the dice, you take your chances. With all of the information I've gleaned from this website, I'm surprised anybody gets married anymore.I just heard the news that tests on Thomas Jefferson's DNA proves that he was the father to at least one (and maybe six!) of a slave woman's children. Infidelity is not a new thing but our access to information (worldwide) probably makes it seem like it is much more prevalent.

Hi Guys,Youre not going to like this. I have a serious answer for once.The question asked was what methods would decrease adultery?1. Honest comunication between H and W.2. Understanding completely what your S is trying to convey to you. Val says she tried to tell me she was starting to stray. I didnt get it. If she would have said I'm going to start seeing a contractor, I believe I may have had a better clue as to what was about to occur and might have had a chance at fixing things then. It seems the thread is taking off to a point where some are dragging a cross out ready to "nail" the betrayers."They" do not get off scott free. They do finally realize what they have done to us, our children and other family members.Reality may not hit them today, tomorrow, or next week. But, it will hit them.It's time to heal and not to hurt. I know it's tough. There are a fews days where I would like to have my cousin [the Pagan] and his gang drag the OM for a long ride on a short chain behind a pick up truck. The only problem with that is it probably would not help my situation and no one has a pick up in the gang. It would be more than obvious if I loaned then one of my ambulances to drag him. ------------------ "It's not over till we say it's over! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? H*ll no!" Blutto...Animal House 1984Wishing us all the Best.Medic

OK, I'm baited enough to give my two cents worth of an opinion on this [Linked Image from marriagebuilders.com]

I think that the marriage institution has been sufficiently devalued in the last 50 or so years, to the point where it ranges with other consumer goods, marriage is no longer a sacred institution. It's too easy to get out of a marriage, even without a good reason, and society is in a way too accepting about divorces. Well, it didn't work, why try to fix it there is plenty of oppotunity to find happiness elsewhere, kind of thinking.Many newly weds do not take the wows that they make seriously enough, since there's always an easy way out (unless you happen to marry the Catholic way). Do not misunderstand me, I think that it's reasonable to be able to get a divorce, I just think that it shouldn't be so easy and that people would have learned from childhood, that once they marry they owe to themselves, their spouse, their kids (if any) and to God to try the utmost to keep their wows and work on the marriage, instead of wanting out at the least sign of trouble. IMHO it's all about moralty both in each individual and in society at large, that need to change.Maybe it's also too easy to get married, nobody gets to drive a car without a driver's license, but anybody can just enter a marriage [Linked Image from marriagebuilders.com]

... Maybe what is needed is an obligatory marriage course, before being allowed to enter into matrimony.------------------ SadMan, who's not so sad anymore, but in a recovery[This message has been edited by SadMan (edited January 27, 2000).]

Fingers Crossed, Get the Bible taught in school as it was when this country was formed.We have veered away from the absolutes that exist in the Bible. That is where adultery is defined as wrong. From both sides we now konw why He said that it is wrong. We need to focus on Him rather than ourselves. Serving others rather than being served.Yes, I am passionate about what is going wrong in the world. However, it must all come to pass before it is all over. It's all in the Bible.Someone posted about the punishment. In the OT the punishment was death by stonig for BOTH parties. That would be very painful and somewhat slow unless they got a good head shot early on during the stoning. ------------------ God Bless, Rob[This message has been edited by professorg (edited January 27, 2000).]

The Bible? As a deterrent to adultery? I suppose David's 1500 wives and 3000 concubines doesn't constitute adultery technically. Well, the wives don't any way. The concubines probably do. But I don't think we should be teaching polygamy as an alternative to adultery. In the Bible, you've got daughters sleeping with their father, fathers secretly marrying off the wrong daughter so Isaac (I think it was him) has to work another 7 years to get the one he wanted (how would you feel if you were the first daughter by the end of that story?), David and Bathsheba, Samson and Delilah, prophets marrying prostitutes just to make a point, on and on. That would be like using the Bible to argue against war. Stay out of the Old Testament!!!!If we use the New Testament we mostly have Paul as the authority on the subject, and he states clearly any really serious Christian wouldn't marry in the first place. Families have a nasty habit of interfering with full time dedication of your life to God. Besides, it's all giving in to temptation and weakness of the flesh and all that. But if you can't resist your urges, better to marry than be damned. I kind of like Paul's implication there. Marriage is a better alternative than going to hell. I know many married people who rank it about the same.The purpose of separation of church and state in the US constitution was to get religion out of the government. Years of European history had shown that religion and despotism always tend to work as powerful allies to the detriment of freedom. Many of the founding fathers were not professing Christians, although most were religious. "Deism" was quite popular.Anyway, if you want to put the Bible in the schools, then why not the Koran? And probably the Buddhist Tao as well. These people are just as entitled to their religion as anybody else. I don't know why anyone who believes in "Scientology" would go to school, they don't like thinking anyway, but you can bet they will want to be part of the new curriculum too. Then you have all the "New Age" followers, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, heck, probably an endless list of religions (2500 at last count) who would love to get at those young and impressionable minds. And the many agnostics out there who prefer their children not be infused with other people's speculations on the nature of God of course would rather no religious instruction at all.My point is that, as there is no consensus what so ever in religious matters, introducing a religious program in the school system will always involve sacrificing the constitutional rights of one or more groups to please the majority. Religion is a personal matter based on faith and it has no place in public institutions dedicated to the instruction of fact.Also, it is quite likely that at some point Christianity will not be the most common religion in the US, mostly due to immigration and a general "turning away" by US citizens. That day is a long way off but probably inevitable. If we imagine that day, do you want the dominant non-Christian religion stuffing their books into your kid's mind? Fair is fair.I think there is only one solution to the problem of adultery: Get used to it. It is a family matter between a man and a woman, and the state doesn't have any interest in legislating bedroom behavior. Property matters and such are not intuitively connected. If you don't want your partner to cheat on you, it is your responsibility to choose your partner wisely and form a mutual agreement about the problem. But, in the end of the day, it is impossible to control another person, or to know them fully. People change and times change, and the person you are married to today may not be the person you married 15 years ago. Life is full of risk.The real solution is to decide for yourself whether or not you want to be an adulterer, and then live up to your own standards. Running around forcing those standards on to other people isn't going to do any good. They have to see it for themselves. Let's face it. The use of deterrents to prevent adultery is selfishly motivated so we can protect ourselves and control the behavior of another person, namely our spouse. If you were the adulterer, you would want rules to prevent vengeful behavior on the part of your spouse. Also you would want laws that prevent manipulation and control. Both parties remain equally entitled to their rights, so how do we solve this?The so called "war on drugs" is probably the best recent example of the successful use of deterrents to enforce morals. We have people in the US being sentence to longer terms for simple marijuana possession than the guy in the next cell will actually serve for murder. So the deterrents are there. I think everyone would agree that the because of these deterrents, drug use in the US is in severe decline.All contracts require a shotgun clause to bring about an equitable termination in the event of failure. Without the right to leave a marriage, there is just too much potential for the "non-adulterous" party to abuse their higher moral ground and manipulate their partner in a "power over" relationship. The dissolution of a marriage needs to be fair and equitable. This involves appropriate provisions for the care of any children, and a fair division of assets.This 10% if you get caught thing is just going to give the private investigators the other 90%. Besides, it probably wouldn't hold in court anyway. And when you get caught, (it can happen to anybody), you are going to think it really sucks.

Okay here is my two cents worth. Society could decrease adultery. Now let me explain. We have become a society where there is no true consequences for doing things. We have been so concerned about hurting or damaging ones self esteeem but we have forgotten what self esteem really is. We slap the hand of people who do wrong tell them not to do it again because we are so worried about damaging their self esteem. Making one feel good about themselves does not allow them to hurt some one else. There is a need for consequences for our actions.I will always feel that had the OW not come on to my H an affair would not have entered his mind and somewhere down the line our marraige would had gotten better. There is a reason for this that I will not go into. She has no respect nor felt any consequences for actions all of her life. Her parents have stated that they could not control her when she was a teen ager. I have problems with this. I am sure there were no rules or guidelines for her she was never made to feel that any action of hers had any consequences, there fore what ever she wanted to do was okay. She had ruined her marriage, her children, and now my marriage because she did or went after what ever she wanted with no thought but to waht made her feel good. Of course this never works because a person never really feels good about themselves until they are able to accept that there actions can and will cause hurt. And when they discover this they stop those actions. I like some of the suggestions I have read here but most of them stem from the point that people need to take responsibility for their lives and realize for everything they do there is a consequence good or bad. Once we teach our children this then we will see a change.Time to get off my soap box.------------------ di

Oh, come on, Rob, you're smarter than that.Just because you're spiritual doesn't mean you can't use your brain. Just because you're spiritual doesn't mean you have to come up with pat answers like that.I know you're capable of better.When I was a kid in the early 1960's, we still said the Lord's Prayer in school. And President Kennedy was boinking everything in sight, and my mother's best friend was being cheated on.Let's not even get into whose prayer we're going to say. Sheesh, it was bad enough then, when all you had to worry about was the Jews (and I am one). Now you've got Buddhist, Hindus, Ba'hai, Taoists, Sikhs, Muslims, etc.Oh yeah. I forgot. They don't count because they don't follow the One True Way.And by the way, Rob, if Christian prayer is such a foolproof safeguard against infidelity, than how come there are so many Christian betrayers? Seems to me we have a new poster who's a betrayed -- and a pastor's wife.Anyway, don't mean to be inflammatory, but this kind of pat answer just bugs me.Now back to the subject at hand.The bottom line: There are no easy answers. Everything people have come up with -- punishment, scarlet letters, whippings, canings, death penalty; and everything people are blaming it on -- Clinton, a secular society, hippies, television, movies (guilty as charged), the Bavarian Illuminati, you name it -- are all tainted by reductio ad absurdam. Oversimplified, pat explanations and answers to a complex problems.Infidelity has been around as long as there have been people, and probably before. Only ducks mate for life instinctively, folks. The rest of us have to work harder. Marriage is many things, and it hasn't evolved as society has. It's a structure for ensuring the passing of property...a structure for ensuring that children will be taken care of. It's a means of companionship, regular sex, prepared meals, you name it.It's easier to get married than it is to drive a car. And maybe it shouldn't be. A friend just wrote me that she'd been to a wedding where the groom was crazy about the bride, but the bride married the groom because he was an OK guy and it seemed the right thing to do.You know as well as I do where THAT'S heading. We go into marriage with unrealistic expectations. We think it's "romantic." It isn't. We think it's easy. It isn't. We think it just "happens." It doesn't. A successful marriage is a JOB. It's a good job, a rewarding job, but a job nonetheless. It DOESN'T just happen.

wow Dazed that was good Lesa------------------ "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding." -Proverbs 3:5 Take care and God Bless. lms20ish@jobe.net

nonplused: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Bible? As a deterrent to adultery? I suppose David's 1500 wives and 3000 concubines doesn't constitute adultery technically. Well, the wives don't any way. The concubines probably do. But I don't think we should be teaching polygamy as an alternative to adultery. In the Bible, you've got daughters sleeping with their father, fathers secretly marrying off the wrong daughter so Isaac (I think it was him) has to work another 7 years to get the one he wanted (how would you feel if you were the first daughter by the end of that story?), David and Bathsheba, Samson and Delilah, prophets marrying prostitutes just to make a point, on and on. That would be like using the Bible to argue against war. Stay out of the Old Testament!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The multiple wives and the concubines were MAN's idea, not God's idea. To populate the earth, incest was okay until it was banned by the laws that God gave Moses. Don't know which book it is in but it is there. Though I used the OT for the punishment, I was not saying that was the solution. We must take the Bible in it's entirety to solve the problem. God's plan was one man for one woman. The rest was MAN's idea which is related to man's perversion. Sin is the problem. God directed Hosea, the prophet, to marry a harlot to show MANKIND that He, God, would be kind and forgive if we, MANKIND, would repent and come back to Him. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If we use the New Testament we mostly have Paul as the authority on the subject, and he states clearly any really serious Christian wouldn't marry in the first place. Families have a nasty habit of interfering with full time dedication of your life to God. Besides, it's all giving in to temptation and weakness of the flesh and all that. But if you can't resist your urges, better to marry than be damned. I kind of like Paul's implication there. Marriage is a better alternative than going to hell. I know many married people who rank it about the same. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> God is the one who bestows the gift of singleness and marriedness. Because our nature is sinful, all that which Paulwrote aboutis true. But if God is directing your path, it is possible to devote every aspect of your life to worshipping God. Every aspect of our lives MUST be given over to Him so that He is edified. In doing so, we edify ourselves because He blesses us as the result of being obedient children. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The purpose of separation of church and state in the US constitution was to get religion out of the government.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not true. It was to keep government from dictating how one is to worship the one true God. The Europeans system wanted one or the other: catholic or protestant. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Years of European history had shown that religion and despotism always tend to work as powerful allies to the detriment of freedom. Many of the founding fathers were not professing Christians, although most were religious. "Deism" was quite popular.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There were few Diests. The majority were Christians. Diesm is well known because of Jefferson and Franklin who were the least religious of them all but most well known by most Americans. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Anyway, if you want to put the Bible in the schools, then why not the Koran? And probably the Buddhist Tao as well. These people are just as entitled to their religion as anybody else. I don't know why anyone who believes in "Scientology" would go to school, they don't like thinking anyway, but you can bet they will want to be part of the new curriculum too. Then you have all the "New Age" followers, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, heck, probably an endless list of religions (2500 at last count) who would love to get at those young and impressionable minds. And the many agnostics out there who prefer their children not be infused with other people's speculations on the nature of God of course would rather no religious instruction at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All the documents written by the framers of our Constitution support Christianity. We have liberalized our beliefs to include these other religions. No, I am not knocking them because the final court of arbitration is God's word. It is not mine or anyone elses. It is His. He is the one who will say well done my good and faithful servant or get away from Me, I never knew you. These others can be taught as well. But to know the truth, you must study the truth. Satan is very cunning and knows significantly more than any human. He can trip us up but he can't trip up God; thus, we must allow God to direct our paths. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> My point is that, as there is no consensus what so ever in religious matters, introducing a religious program in the school system will always involve sacrificing the constitutional rights of one or more groups to please the majority. Religion is a personal matter based on faith and it has no place in public institutions dedicated to the instruction of fact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Christianity is personal because it doesn't exist unless you have a person relationship with Jesus. Just as having a wonderful marriage requires work so does having a relationship with Jesus. This relationship is not religion. Religion is a term that is used to muddy the issue which has led to us being here on this forum. It boils down to MANKIND being sinful. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Also, it is quite likely that at some point Christianity will not be the most common religion in the US, mostly due to immigration and a general "turning away" by US citizens. That day is a long way off but probably inevitable. If we imagine that day, do you want the dominant non-Christian religion stuffing their books into your kid's mind? Fair is fair.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are right because this is what the Bible says is going to happen though not directly. Yet, God says that Christianity is going to rule in the end. What happens between now and then is the path that must be trod by those who chose it. Who defines what is fair. If we leave it to each individual, then it is only what benefits the individual regardless of who gets hurt in the process. When you do as Jesus did, then you are always in a serving mode rather than a receiving mode. It is not about what you get in return, it is about doing what is best for everyone else. It requires us to be selfless. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I think there is only one solution to the problem of adultery: Get used to it. It is a family matter between a man and a woman, and the state doesn't have any interest in legislating bedroom behavior. Property matters and such are not intuitively connected. If you don't want your partner to cheat on you, it is your responsibility to choose your partner wisely and form a mutual agreement about the problem. But, in the end of the day, it is impossible to control another person, or to know them fully. People change and times change, and the person you are married to today may not be the person you married 15 years ago. Life is full of risk.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with this only because we are sinful. But, I also have to disagree because the Bible says that such things will cease. We won't be able to see this come about in this part of life. But in the rest of our existence we will get to see it. We ALL exist forever. As long as Satan has power, this will be true. But once that power is removed then no it will not for those who are one with God. Those who choose not to be with God will probably endure it forever. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The real solution is to decide for yourself whether or not you want to be an adulterer, and then live up to your own standards. Running around forcing those standards on to other people isn't going to do any good. They have to see it for themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They are not my standards. they are God's standards. We have gotten awya from what He has said because we want to be bigger and better than God. It is a pride thing for all of us. I suffer from this as well because my flesh is weak. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Let's face it. The use of deterrents to prevent adultery is selfishly motivated so we can protect ourselves and control the behavior of another person, namely our spouse. If you were the adulterer, you would want rules to prevent vengeful behavior on the part of your spouse. Also you would want laws that prevent manipulation and control. Both parties remain equally entitled to their rights, so how do we solve this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Apply the rules set forth by God. If you don't do what the creator of your car says that you should do then your car won't last very long. It won't last as long as the creator of the car says it will last unless you follow the manual for the car. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The so called "war on drugs" is probably the best recent example of the successful use of deterrents to enforce morals. We have people in the US being sentence to longer terms for simple marijuana possession than the guy in the next cell will actually serve for murder. So the deterrents are there. I think everyone would agree that the because of these deterrents, drug use in the US is in severe decline.All contracts require a shotgun clause to bring about an equitable termination in the event of failure. Without the right to leave a marriage, there is just too much potential for the "non-adulterous" party to abuse their higher moral ground and manipulate their partner in a "power over" relationship. The dissolution of a marriage needs to be fair and equitable. This involves appropriate provisions for the care of any children, and a fair division of assets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This all results from each trying to set their own rules which always entails one person getting a bigger peice of the pie. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This 10% if you get caught thing is just going to give the private investigators the other 90%. Besides, it probably wouldn't hold in court anyway. And when you get caught, (it can happen to anybody), you are going to think it really sucks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, it does suck. And the solution is to use the manual. We have to look at it in its entirety. When you take scripture out of context, you change its meaning. It would be like you happen to be sitting in the car that your friend decided to use as their get away car unbeknownst to you when they robbed the bank. ------------------ God Bless, Rob It won't happen for us. It takes a long time change it for everyone. It starts with teaching the children. If they actually think about it and don't follow the example of their parents and the rest of the significant adults in their lives. Because God got to me early enough, I have not done this. He keeps getting in my face daily to keep me from going down that path. I choe to do His will rather than my will.[This message has been edited by professorg (edited January 27, 2000).]

Dazed and Confused: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Oh, come on, Rob, you're smarter than that.Just because you're spiritual doesn't mean you can't use your brain. Just because you're spiritual doesn't mean you have to come up with pat answers like that.I know you're capable of better.When I was a kid in the early 1960's, we still said the Lord's Prayer in school. And President Kennedy was boinking everything in sight, and my mother's best friend was being cheated on.Let's not even get into whose prayer we're going to say. Sheesh, it was bad enough then, when all you had to worry about was the Jews (and I am one). Now you've got Buddhist, Hindus, Ba'hai, Taoists, Sikhs, Muslims, etc.Oh yeah. I forgot. They don't count because they don't follow the One True Way.And by the way, Rob, if Christian prayer is such a foolproof safeguard against infidelity, than how come there are so many Christian betrayers? Seems to me we have a new poster who's a betrayed -- and a pastor's wife.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just because you profess it with your mouth does not make you a Christian. There are loads of professed Christians who really are not saved. The Bible says that there is only one way. God said it. I didn't. It still is man's idea to d these things that are against God. When we sin, we sin against Him. That is the definition of sin, going against God's will. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Anyway, don't mean to be inflammatory, but this kind of pat answer just bugs me.Now back to the subject at hand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand it upsets everyone. Yet, God's plan is the only solution to the problem. He is the designer and knows what is best.------------------ God Bless, Rob

WowMy only input is that I wish the OP would be able to be held partly responsible. I know that we don't really want the gov't to intrude into our bedrooms, but it might make some people think just a little bit, even if they don't have the good sense God gave them. (or they choose to ignore it)Why shouldn't a person be held responsible for their actions? Alienation of affection is real. The betrayed only has the recourse of "letting go" It's hard to rebuild a life with not many resources. No fault divorce just makes having an affair easier. Yes, there should be dialogue between H & W but that can only happen with 2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>All the documents written by the framers of our Constitution support Christianity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where? Name one place. That the framers were Christian doesn't mean the documents support it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We have liberalized our beliefs to include these other religions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, that's damn nice of you, Rob, and as someone whose grandmother had nine brothers and sisters fried in Hitler's ovens, I guess I should be grateful to you for being so inclusive.We've also liberalized our beliefs to disbelieve in slavery since the framers wrote the Constitution, too. I guess that means blacks out to be as grateful to you as I am. [This message has been edited by Dazed and Confused (edited January 27, 2000).]

Dazed and Confused:Contact D. James Kennedy at Coral Ridge Ministries (800-229-WORD) to get information on a person who has a library full of documents written by the framers of the constitution that support Christianity.I know that I didn't say exactly what is in my heart. I am not excluding anyone. There are only two groups of people: saved and unsaved. You either have a personal relationship with Jesus or you don't. He said He is the only way to the Father. Slavery was the result of MAN taking what is in the Bible out of context. I can relate because I am a black man. I don't judge people. The Bible says you will know a tre by its fruit and that fatith without works is dead. We have to take the Bible in its entirety just as we have to take into consideration what was in the hearts of the founders of our country. Yes, several of them were slave owners. Was that because they were to weak to stand the peer pressure which is the usual reason most give in.Slavery was actually left out of the Constitution and corrected with an amendment later because the wording in the Constitution did not preclude it. I am merely saying what God has said in the Bible. I am not trying to put any spin on it because that would make me as bad as Satan. If I ever quote anything that is inaccurate please correct me because I am fallible and He isn't done with me yet.I am truly sorry if I have offended you in my presentation of His truth. This is my primary flaw which has now plagued me for 37+ years. He is still working on me to correct this problem. It has also been a problem for my marriage. I can only say that I am doing my best to get this communication thing better so that I offend less.MONDO HUG!!!!! LOL!!!!!One last note. It is not about religion. It is about having a personal relationship with Jesus because He says so. Religion has to with beliefs and I don't use the word because it has a muddy definition. I actually try to look at all the data present and come to a logical conclusion, much like lawyers. ------------------ God Bless, Rob[This message has been edited by professorg (edited January 27, 2000).][This message has been edited by professorg (edited January 27, 2000).][This message has been edited by professorg (edited January 27, 2000).]

Punishment? I am not interested in vengeance. Anybody who is interested in revenge has more of a personal problem than those they seek to do harm to - at least IMHO.However, I do find certain aspects interesting. Why try so hard to deter infidelity? That's like saying you believe that it's going to happen, no matter what. Instead, why not encourage honesty within relationships?Marriage, in most countries, is basically a contract between two people, in which they vow to become a monogamous couple, working together for their benefit and the benefit of their children. Instead of "punishing" somebody's morality, there should be, IMHO, penalties for breaking the marriage contract. Of course there is always an easy way out of a marriage contract which has no penalties - divorce.However, should one break the marriage contract:1) Loose custody of your childrenI agree with this recommendation. The person has demonstrated that they are incapable of being trusted, or respected, and that they have no honour. Why should such a person of ill repute then be trusted with children?2) You will pay spousal support untill your spouse remarries.I do not agree fully with this recommendation. A person has to get their own life together and move on, no matter what. However I feel that the betrayer should be, as the one who broke the marriage contract, responsible for spousal support for a reasonable amount of time (say, 5 years or so).3) You are 100% responcible for the support of any children until they are 21 or no longer a full time student.Disagree completely. Children are a SHARED responsibility. Why burden one person with all the responsibility? This would only punish the betrayer, and like I wrote previously, I think vengeance is sick.4)The innocent spouse gets all of the marrital possesions and monies. (including marital home)Disagree completely. These are joint possessions. Forcing the betrayer to give up everything would only be a punishment - and I think everybody knows what I think of vengeance by now.5) The adulterer gets all the marital debt.And naturally the need to work thier buns off to support the whole thing. Again, I completely disagree. The marital debt should be shared equally until it is fully paid off. Otherwise, it would be (again) punshiment, something I don't quite believe in.All of what I've suggested only places emphasis upon responsibility rather than culpability. Anybody else see and appreciate the difference? Why punish? Instead we should try and enlighten people as to their responsibilities.Along with this the Alienation of Affections law should be put back on the books in all the states. That way the OP will be less inclined to participate in an affair that could cost them everything they own.Agreed. The OP should be liable for all the betrayed costs' for the divorce, and should be open to be sued for the suffering the betrayed had to endure because of their deliberately ignoring THEIR responsibilities (honouring another person's marriage contract).JM2CW------------------ ~~ Elixir ~~

Well now, this thread has certainly been a heated one. Thought I would toss my hat into the ring. First, this quote got my dander up <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The purpose of separation of church and state in the US constitution was to get religion out of the government.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is NOT in the constitution or the OR the Declaration of Independence. It was originally from a speech by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson point was that the government should not institute a state run religion; as was happening in England. Most of the writers of the constitution were Christian. The only explicit religious reference in the body of the Constitution is in Article VI, clause 3 which provides that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." I believe their intent was to keep America a place for the free exercise of religion and free of religious persecution. The framers of the constitution believed that a society with mixed persuasions could prosper and that all should be given "soul liberty" to speak and act as their consciences prompted. Christians and non-Christians alike were possessed of such conscience and it is the purpose of government to provide them a protected arena to work out their visions of conscience. IMO, I think we have come full circle here. Christian and Christian theology is now under persecution in American schools (as well as the media).1. My kids have been told not to pray in school. 2. My kids have been told they are not allowed to say the name Jesus in school. 3. My oldest son was sent to the principals office for writing a paper on how he accepted Christ as his savior. The assignment was to write an essay on a significant event in your life. 4. Everyone of my kids have brought home school assignments about Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam. My 6 year old brings home pictures of a menorah to color. yet, if he draws a cross - it's taboo. 5. They celebrate Hanukah, yet Christmas is a Winter Festival.I could go on and on about the persecution my kids receive in public school simply for what they believe. I guess that is why so many Christians are POed. You can bet I'm in the principal's office explaining that my child did NOT give up his constitutional rights when they enter the school yard. We're just looking for equal acceptance. Religion is a part of most people's life - the government can't shove it down our throats nor can they rip it out of our lives. OK, off that soap box. Don't get me started on the Biblical aspect of adultery. I think Rob handled that pretty well. So, how do we decrease adultery? Beats the poop out of me. If I knew that, I wouldn't be here.SHA[This message has been edited by Sir Hurts Alot (edited January 27, 2000).]

ElixirI am not interested in punishment either.But why should I end up with less than I have right now? I didn't have the affair. I didn't want the marriage to end. So why should I end up with any less financially than I had when I thought I was in a happy marriage? I don't think I should.Granted, I should have been more attuned to my H's needs (and he mine) however there is a big differance between not meeting ones needs and having an affair and ending a marriage, no? When I typed the things you quoted I was suffering from a bit of tunnel vision, I believe. You see I am a SAHM. I've been one for 13 years. At my H's suggestion (insistance). I tried earlier on, on many occasions to renter the work force but was told in no uncertain terms I could not. So the things I wrote were things that applied to *my* situation. I apologize for not stating this originally. For me I stand by what I wrote.Yes, my H should be responsible for our children's financial support untill they are no longer in school or untill they leave our home. This 18 year age of majority is a lot of bullhockey. I do ALL the other types support ie; educational, emotional, etc. Will my areas of support be terminated when the children turn 18? I don't think so. His only contribution in the area of the children has been and is financial. His support shouldn't end at 18 either.Yes, my H should be responsible for my support untill I either remarry or untill I can support myself in the style I have lived for the past 21 years. He didn't want me working when I was still of the age I was marketable. Now that I am no longer desireable for long term employment because of my age he shouldn't just *help me out for 5 years or so*. Not to mention how could I ever make up the years of career and income advancement I've lost, I'll answer that, I can't.Yes, I believe I should get all of the marital assets. If he wouldn't have had this affair I would be enjoying them any way. So I am to loose my home etc. because he chose poorly? I don't think so.Yes, I believe he should keep the marital debt. He has the 6 figure income. One that would not be there today if it hadn't been for me. He berated me many years ago for being an executive and inisited I be a SAHM or I'd be a lousy mother. As a middle aged woman for me to start again isn't out of the question. However, for me to build up to the life style I currently have will take *way* more than 5 years or so.We do agree on the custody suggestion and you explained it wonderfully.As for Alienation of Affections.... I happen to live in a state where it is a law. The purpose of this law is for a betrayed person to recover from finacial loss and suffering because of another. The monies do not go to the betrayer, they go to the betrayed. The law is fine in my opinion. I just wish betrayed in *all* states had the option of using it.This is probably more than you wanted to know about me and my beliefs but I felt a need to explain my reasoning.Fingers Crossed

Elixir,Since when is losing custody of your children not punishment? Although I'm sure you'll disagree with me, the act of adultery alone does not make someone a bad parent. I believe Martin Luther King cheated on his wife. So did Franklin Roosevelt. Both of these men lead otherwise exemplary lives, so you can't completely categorize someones entire existence by one act. Hitler was mentioned in this post somewhere. He supposedly was a strict vegetarian,but he obviously had no regard for ALL living things. Fingers crossed,"He didn't want me working when I was still of the age I was marketable."It was still your choice not to work. You're not your husband's slave. I'm really sorry that this happened to you. You invested your life with him and he let you down. However, I still think this illustrates why women need to have some kind of occupation to fall back on and certainly need an education at the least. You, and alot of other women, place all of their faith on the whims of one person. On one hand, that is kind of sweet and hopeful. But what if your H had died or become seriously disabled through no fault of his own? You'd be in the same place you are now, or worse, because your H wouldn't be around to continue to support your children at all. [This message has been edited by fly (edited January 27, 2000).]

FlyActually it was not my choice to give up my career. 13 years ago I was a VP making 40K, plus bonus, plus 100% company paid insurance, plus company car, and assorted other perks. Do you really think it was my choice to trade it all in for burp rags and diapers? Not hardly. Seeing as you do not know my H it is actually silly of you to assume it was *I* who made this choice. I even had FREE child care provided by my mother and he never had to pick up or drop off the kids.I was not a slave, but a *good* wife who did what my H wanted me to do. He was threatened by my career. He wanted to be the bread winner. He wanted me to do the baking of said bread. Perhaps our being raised in the 1950's had some affect on what my H felt our resspective roles in our marriage should be. I do regret giving up my career. My daughters are being raised to NEVER give up their career for any man. But if my H now decides he no longer wants to be married it doesn't change the facts. He wanted me to give it all up. He wanted to be the bread winner. He got what he asked for. Now he needs to follow through. And the funny thing is he IS. Not once has he ever given us less than what we need finacially. In the area of disabilty or death... The scenario you presented doesn't apply to my situation. We have huge insurance policies and always have (and yes, I am the benificiary on them all to this day). If something was to happen to my H now or earlier on I wouldn't EVER have to worry about money again.As to what you said to Elixir about parents who have affairs and leave their W's and children for their concubines..... You are welcome to any opinion you choose. I however agree with Elixir. I wouldn't want my daughters being raised in a household where only adulterors reside. Children learn much more by their parents actions than by their words.Fingers Crossed

I'm sorry you are going through this. I'm glad you are encouraging your daughters to be self-sufficient[This message has been edited by TheStudent (edited January 28, 2000).]

I am not aware of any states where it is not precedent to consider the length of the marriage and the employability of the "stay-at-home" person when determining support. However, the idea that someone should be "maintained in a lifestyle" that they did not earn themselves is ridiculous. The concept only applies to children. We all have to wipe our own bums. If a woman decides to stay at home, whether under coercion from her husband or not, it is her decision. She is also enjoying a lifestyle at that point few women these days can afford. The luxury of raising your own children is for most women a pipe dream. A woman who decides to stay at home and live off the labor of another is not automatically entitled to life long support. There is an implicit child rearing contract associated with the arrangement, which is why courts are willing to provide spousal support at all. But there is a limit to how long a court is willing to consider an adult person "dependant" on someone else.With regard to property division, I just don't get how anyone thinks something other than 50/50 both assets and debts is reasonable. Why would a house owned 50/50 suddenly become 100/0 just because one of the parties thinks it should be so? "But he cheated on me!!!" So? I don't see the connection. One subject is about who owns what, the other is who is (ahem)ing who. The two are not legally related. I find it hard to see how they are intuitively related either. Although I can see the motivation to want a free house.Maybe the police could use similar arguments. "Hey, nice Porsche! But you were going 10 miles over the limit! Give me the keys, it's my car now. Oh ya, and give me your credit card, because you have to pay for my gas for life!"Lots of talk about "Jesus is the one true way" and stuff like that above. This is a religious viewpoint based on faith. There are no facts whatsoever to evidence the truth or falsity of the proposition. It was "voted" in to truth during the canonization process, but that reflects the consensus of the early church more so than any particular fact. It is a valid belief to hold, so long as one remembers that he believes it based on faith, and faith does not make a thing provably true. If it works for you, that's great. But religious matters, based on faith as they are and not on fact, are as a consequence extremely personal.Also read some responses about how all the multiple wives and concubines and incest in the bible was man's idea and not God's. Interesting how it all got in as the word of God. More interesting is the precedent: Man's ideas take precedent over God's ideas, and God will be ok with that and continue to bless David no matter how many wives he takes. It is close to preposterous. If man can just live differently to God's law and it matters almost not at all, what good is God's law then? Perhaps that's the point. It was never anything more than one particular religious writer's opinion (commonly ascribed to Moses, although the text appears to have been first written during the Babylonian captivity and for some strange reason the writer refers to Moses in the second person throughout. Even stranger that the writer uses names for towns that either did not exist or commonly went by other names at the time the events were alleged to have occurred.) It's a good opinion, but it's not the only opinion. It was a suitable law for meandering nomads. But concepts like "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" are considered primitive today. It shows no better than level two moral development.Reminds me of an old joke: Jewish people are notorious negotiators. Moses, the first negotiator of them all, comes down from the mountain to update the elders of the tribes. "I have good news and bad news" he says. "The good news is I got him down to 10. The bad news is that adultery is still in."What we need to do is take personal responsibility for our own lives and our own actions. And the best reason I can think of to do anything "correctly", is because it is in your own best interest, and in the best interest of the people around you. But it is still up to you to do it. And it is up to other people to decide what they will do for themselves. The other thing we need to stop doing, is believing some how, in any way what so ever, our spouses are responsible for our lives and our wellbeing. That's what parent's do for children; nobody wants to be married to a grown up child.

StudentThanks for your kind words.Yes, my daughters are very strong! I just hope they aren't so srong they scare off the men that come into their lives. [Linked Image from marriagebuilders.com]

Fingers Crossed

This discussion is great, but to keep simple I'm with K & Jim- Have books like Steve Harley's and John Gray (Men are From Mars...etc.) be mandatory in school.In some states in Mexico, you go to a pre-nuptial meeting with the judge or a counselor before you marry. This should be a full seminar & it should be mandatory that couples attend yearly workshops focused on a) how to fulfill the spouse's emotional needs; b) parenthood; c) human relations.These workshops would be sponsored by government and/or non-profit organizations for those who couldn't afford the price —$—), since the price society has to pay because of adultery & destroyed marriages is high.You know what? Once I can be more focused I’ll start this idea- I think it’ll be a good contribution to society if we all give this to our communities. We’re learning from this but it would be better if others learn without going through so much pain.Alex------------------ Live and learn

Excellent discussion!!I'm gonna sound like one of those, "If we all had a candle, what a bright world it would be" people...nonpulused said it all with the words "personal responsibility". If everyone would just take responsibility for their actions and listen to their soul, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I've said it before: there was a moment in time when I realized I was going to cross the line with the OM. I knew it, but I did it anyway. Nobody made me do it, I chose to do it. Was I hurting? Yes. Was I depressed? Yes. Did I wish my H would pay attention to me? Yes. Did I have what the world would call a "reason" to look elsewhere for love? Yes. Did I have the right to grab at someone who wasn't my H? NO.Life is a series of choices, some good, some bad. I made a bad choice. And I am paying for it dearly every day of my life. MY CHOICE. So, in my opinion, the only true deterent to having an affair is yourself.I'm nuts, right? [Linked Image from marriagebuilders.com]

Sheryl, You are right. I keep telling my W, who told our sons this last night, that your life is what you make of it because you made the decisions that got you where you are. If you see your life is miserable then you can only blame yourself because you made the decisions that caused your state of unhappiness.We can't go blame someone else for what we do. When we meet our Maker, He is going to say that you made the choice. He is just going to enforce the decision that you made because He warned you way in advance.Nonplused, We are both saying the same thing. It is a personal decision in everything that one does. You choose not to tie it back to God. I do because He is real and is the only thing in my life that is helping to see things clearly. He brought me here to get help as well as to help others who are going through this mess caused by the chaos caused by the lies that Satan tells us all.------------------ God Bless, Rob regilmor@swbell.net

nonplused, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>A woman who decides to stay at home and live off the labor of another is not automatically entitled to life long support. There is an implicit child rearing contract associated with the arrangement<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A person who stays at home raising the children is NOT living off the labor of another - I have been a SAHM only four years of the 19 that I have been a mother - and I can assure you that raising children is much harder than any job I have ever had, including dairy farming. And have you ever tried to get a job after having been out of the workforce for even a couple of years? Both my H and I have, and it was terribly difficult, and can take years, often forever, before you catch up to your former income/position. If you have been out of the workforce for more than a few years, and you are over 40, and especially if you are in high tech, it is likely that you will never catch up. Part of the implicit child rearing contract should be the realization of the impact on future earnings of being out of the workforce - and yes, it should entitle the SAHM (or SAHF) to lifetime support.And why should either parent be entitled to 50% of the house - what about what the children are entitled to? This is not my house, or his house - it is first and foremost our children's home. It is becoming more and more common in our state to force the sale of the marital home, because so much equity is often tied up in it, in spite of the fact that child psychologists almost invariably recommend NOT disrupting the lives of the children further by moving them away from their support system. Before my H left, we spent at least 75% of our income on them - now they benefit from a far smaller percentage of my H's income. The justification given for the child support guidelines not being higher than they are is that two households are more expensive than one. While that may be true, that is not relevant in cases like my H's, where it is not a matter of an additional household - it is just a redistribution of his income - our household now gets less income, and the OW's household gets more.

NonplusedWhat Nellie said....and.......Seeing as you know nothing of my situation, how I became a SAHM or how our business was formed I guess you are speaking from assumption. So to enlighten you a bit....here goes......1) The money that bought the home I currently live in ie: the marrital home, came from ME. Remember I held an executive postion many moons ago. Also I live in an equitable distribution state not a community property state, thank you very much. And guess what? The life style I live is considered in my spousal support judgement, if there is one. So much for your theory that only the children's life style is taken into account when it comes to financial concerns. If I belong to a counrty club now... I will even if I get divorced. And yes, the membership will be financed by my H.2) *OUR* bussiness NEVER would have flourished let alone started if it wasn't for ME. My monies began the business and my abilities to entertain, schmooze, create a customer base and keep it, and maintain a home worthy of clients is what kept it rolling, at least in part. You couldn't fill a teaspoon with my H's charisma or savy in the business world. So I wasn't living off the fruits of anyones labor except my own.3)If it wasn't for me raising our children my H would NEVER have had children. Period. He wanted them alright but did not want any part of raising them. Nor did he,or does he to this day believe in day care. Not even when provided by family members.4) I suggested he give up his *job* and be a stay at home dad. I would have prefered this or keeping the children in day care to me giving up my *career*. This was unacceptable to him. Of course he waited untill I was already expecting our 2nd child before he decided he would put his foot down. So what would you have done in this situation? Left your spouse that you love? Kept your career and watched your spouse get eaten alive from the inside? Or....?5) In the state I live in my H would be supporting me the rest of my life, if I choose to let him. The thing that really makes me giggle about your attitude on this subject is that I have no intention of doing so. I will be starting law school shortly. I will do as much pro bono work as I can fighting for SHAM's whose H's walk out on them for OW. [Linked Image from marriagebuilders.com]

So even if some don't think it is appropriate, I will not only be preaching it here I will be activily pursuing perminant support for SHAM's from long term marriages. And God help the OP if I practice in an Alienation of Affection state. I'm considering a two for one deal with this one. [Linked Image from marriagebuilders.com]

6) Perhaps in the area you reside SAHM's are scarce. Not so in mine. It isn't a pipe dream or a luxoury here, it is a reality. The lake I live on has 20 homes encircling it. Of the 20 families who live in these homes there is one Mother who works outside of the home. She is a physician. Perhaps you can better understand *my* postion now. If not I guess me can agree to disagree on this one. [Linked Image from marriagebuilders.com]

Fingers Crossed (who wiped her own bum, those of her children, AND her husband)

I think the suggestion that we all just agree to disagree is a good one.Some excellent points have been made in this discussion, but there are definitely some things that rub me the wrong way.First of all, as a teacher, I am more than a little sick of the idea that the solution to every problem is to require teachers to teach it. Someone here actually suggested making John Gray's books required reading in school! Don't even get me started about the censorship that would result from that, BUT why are teachers supposed to not only educate but also raise other people's children? Listen people, we have them about six hours a day, five days a week. They are the parent's responsibility 24/7. I'm willing to do my part, but please accept that there are limits. We are not superheroes (most of us anyway).Also, the disrespectful judgements about other religions REALLY offends me. Yes, I am a Southern Baptist, but even I don't believe that born-again baptized Christians will be the only ones in heaven. Come on, aren't disrespectful judgements one of the worst love busters?This whole discussion has gone too far afield. The question was asked to generate some ideas for ways to discourage adultery. Personally, I have always felt that it was too easy to get married, so I would agree with premarital education and counseling.If I had been asked this question four months ago, my answer probably would have been castration! But I'm a lot calmer now.Philosophical discussions are great, but GOOD GRIEF, let's put this one to rest.My opinion only.Peppermint[This message has been edited by peppermint (edited January 28, 2000).]

* [This message has been edited by Doug (edited January 28, 2000).]

Fingers crossed,Sounds like you live in a very fortunate part of the world. The "norm", and by that I mean the majority, is that most children are raised in two income families in this day and age. For most people it is a luxury completely out of consideration. Don't get me wrong, it's great if you can afford it, most people can't.I don't deny that raising children is quite a bit of work. But based on my observations, I'm not sure a working mom has it any easier. Once you get the kids from the day care, you still have all the responsibilities of running any household. Only you had to work 8 hours too.Also, when I refer to SAHM's as a luxury, I am not referring to the workload involved. Every job is just as hard as the next once you get used to it. Most people tend to work at their own level, no matter what the job. Most women do a great job and work very hard. I also think it is probably the best thing for the children to be raised by their mother full time and not a day care. But yet it is something most parents' cannot afford and most children are not entitled to. Because some children live without it, it does seem that it should be defined as a luxury and not a a necessity.So when I say it is a luxury, I am not referring to how much work you do during the day. I am referring to the fact that you have been able to make a lifestyle choice many, if not most, women cannot.I think it shows a wee bit of sensitivity to the subject whenever it is raised that SAHM's immediately jump to the defense about how much work it is, the hardest job I ever had, etc. Nobody is ever talking about that. At least I certainly wasn't. Most people are referring to the fact that as desirable as it would be to raise your own children, most mothers could not even imagine being able to afford to do so. I suppose it is always a matter of priorities, maybe if you had only a two bedroom half duplex on the wrong side of the tracks and no new mini van you could do it on one person's salary. However, I don't know too many stay at home moms who are even willing to make that sacrifice. They would rather go back to work, for the most part.Where I live, the stated objective of the courts in the event of divorce is "To achieve financial independence of the former spouses in a reasonable time frame." A "reasonable time frame" is the part they argue about. For instance, a SAHM who has been married and never worked in 35 years is not likely to achieve financial independence. She would be entitled to a portion of her ex-husbands retirement income for life. But a 30 year old woman who has been married for 8 years is not going to be able to argue her dependence to that degree. It is very typical for the judge to limit the alimony to 4 years, that being the approximate time it would take her to upgrade her education if necessary. If the husband put the wife through university already, (which I did), she may be considered immediately employable and entitled to no more than 2 years support. This sort of reasoning is common all over North America. The US is interesting because you always have a few hold out jurisdictions. Same with the death penalty I guess. More states that don't than do but still some hold outs.Also, I have referred to everything as "husband pays wife". Most states don't differentiate on gender and "Wife pays husband" is becoming more and more common. I had a friend in University who worked as an electrician to put his wife through law school. The plan was that when she finished he would go to Engineering. She dumped him as soon as she graduated. He sued for support and won. The judge said "4 years to upgrade your education. That was the implicit arrangement."Someone mentioned that it is better for the children to stay in their own home than have to move. Almost nobody would disagree with that. But I don't see how that means the automatically own it. My ex was able to keep the house. That happened for 3 reasons. I got a fairly big raise after she dumped me, so the child support payments went up considerably. They constitute more than 1/3 of her after tax income. Second her dad gave her a lot of money because she was having a terrible time managing. He also co-signed her mortgage. I'm very thankful he did, because otherwise she would have lost the house. Job or no job she didn't have the income to get that mortgage on her own. Third, she is a bright girl and she got a good job. With those three parts together my ex is still in the house, which means my kids are still in the house.Strangely, they seem to prefer my apartment. Probably because I let them eat too many "pizza-pops".But all this aside, fingers crossed, I have to say that you don't talk about your husband in very nice terms. The way I see it, if he is half what you say he is, this should be a very happy time for you. He sounds like he has been an enormous drain on you. Without you he never would have been successful, not having any characteristics of his own that would enable him to be so. Add to that the career sacrifices you made to support him in his career, and I can see why you are so upset. I think in time you will be very glad to be rid of him. You will be free to benefit from your own successes now rather than him all the time. I think the best revenge you will be able to take on the OW is to let her have him. I have often thought myself, that if it was appropriate I would send my ex's boyfriend (the OM) a thank-you card once the divorce was finalized. Unfortunately, they already broke up. So I guess the point is mute now. Maybe if I ever run into him in a bar I will buy him a drink.Nellie,The phrase I included about "living off the labor of another" was in retrospect poorly thought out and inappropriate. Please allow me to withdraw it. I willingly concede your point. The effort involved is often as considerable as any other profession. I still maintain that it is an arrangement that most women are not able to achieve, and therefor can be considered a luxury in that it is optional. I by no means wish to imply that it is "Luxurious".Professorg,I agree. The net result of our logic processes do not seem to be terrible different, although the method to get there does seem to differ. For some reason I have become extremely sensitive to phrases that do not imply the "personal" nature of religions or seem to imply that everyone is on the same page. My professed religion is agnostic, which means I see no convincing evidence to indicate that there is a God or that the universe has any need of one, but I also concede that there is no evidence to the contrary either. Until God chooses to provide clearer evidence one way or another, it is up to each individual to decide what they believe. This causes me to, for some reason, be extremely intolerant of statements that imply one religious viewpoint is de facto correct and others are not. This comes from someone somewhat suspicious of all of them. I used to be a "Born-again Christian", but then I started reading. In my own mind I am not able to reconcile the Bible to what we know of the world or what I consider to be moral behavior. But again, that is where I am at, I do not ask that you share my point of view, only that you allow me to have it.For instance, I prefer the phrase "We must all stand strong in our faith and strengthen our relationship with God" as opposed to "We must all focus on Christ, the one true way to God, and give our lives to him". The first phrase can be interpreted in the light of any religion (except agnostic and atheists). Even a Hindu could probably see what you are saying in terms of his own beliefs. The second phrase assumes that all listeners have a common viewpoint about religious matters, which is almost never so.An atheist, on the other hand, needs things phrased according to the morality of man and the betterment of mankind. An atheist does not believe in heaven of hell, so morals are structured to provide a better life for all humanity here on earth. Strangely, the major ones don't end up being any different than the morals common to the major religions. But remember I am an agnostic. An atheist believes there is no God based on the evidence. An agnostic doesn't share that point of view either. The major article of faith that separates an agnostic from the other religions, including atheist, is that an agnostic does not believe determining whether or not there is a God and what he looks like is the first order of business. An agnostic believes living right is much more important than believing right.I know, I know, all the born-agains are going to point out that it is much more important to believe right, living is unimportant. I've heard it. I am not saying that point is not valid. I am saying I have my own viewpoint and I don't believe anyone has the evidence or the right to invalidate it. Without evidence, you must do it by right, and without right, you must do it by evidence. Since the days of the inquisition are over, evidence it is. And even then I am not obligated to listen any more than you are, which is no more than either of us shall choose for ourselves.Peppermint,You are encouraged to participate in which ever discussion topics you wish. I believe I am capable of making my own choice in that matter as well. I personally am enjoying this tread. In my opinion, it's very intellectual and touches some very important subjects. So pthibity-blibit! Obviously I am having a slow day. I just re-read this and must apologize for the length. [This message has been edited by nonplused (edited January 29, 2000).]

I want to say something about the point on SAHM's. Don't take offense. This is just how my life is.I am a SAHM. No it is not a luxury. It is a sacrifice. I do not live in a 2 bedroom duplex, on the wrong side of the tracks either. I live in a 3 bedroom home, on 2 acres of land. I don't drive a new mini-van but my cars runs and gets me where I need to go. The fact I don't work and have never worked, doesn't make my family destitute. We are by no means wealthy, but we manage our money and do not go without. My children are well fed and do not lack clothing. Granted they may not have everything they want, but they do not lack 1 necessity. I decided before I got married that I would not work because I wanted to be home to take care of my children. I wanted to be the one who saw them take their first steps and find that first tooth. We could have had more if I had chose to work, but I sacrificed the closet full of new clothes, the new shoes, the going out to dinner all the time,etc...so I could be the best mother to my children. It was a choice I made and one I would do all over again. Not all one income families are destitute. We may not have much but we are happy with what we do have. Mitzi

It still was a choice, in any event. Would you admit that? For most people that choice is not available. that is my point. Of course, I should have realized this would be a tough sell with this crowd. Owning a home computer is very highly correlated with higher than average income.The difference between a luxury and a necessity is often point of view. I probably cause a lot of division by choosing that word when perhaps "choice" or "option" "not available to everybody" would have been more clear.

Ok yeah, it was a choice. And I don't have a PC, I have WEB TV. BIG price difference. If it wasn't for WEB TV, i wouldn't have the priviledge to get support from everyone here, or for that matter just surf the net. I'll have to say, nonplused, this has to be one of the most interesting threads to pop up. I can honestly say that you are an incredible thinker. You always give so much insight, and make people really think.Mitzi

NonplusedI understand your views on SHAM's and how the full time Mother role has decreased over the years.But just to put a bit of a twist on the subject.... What happens when a divorce takes place when the Mother or Father is a part time employee? When she/he has not been able to use her skills in 10 years or more because they devoted the lions share of their time to the children? Does she/he then have to live on a part time salary or a full time salary that reflects next to nothing in comparison to what she/he made pre children, after the short term spousal support ends? This is exactly what I was talking about when I brought up manditory support for the betrayed by the betrayer. How many people do you know that if they knew they would be supporting thier ex for perhaps an eternity would walk out into the arms of the OP with out trying everything with in their grasp to try to make things work?I wasn't looking for punishment,or a free ride for anyone. Only ways that could help people think twice before they headed down the wrong path. This must have hit too close to home for you, I'm sorry if the conversation has upset you. I did read your profile and it looks like your W (or is it exwife?) was a SHAM even though you didn't really want her to be one. I can understand your frustraions with that. However there are still quite a few SHAM's here in the states. Not all are wealthy. Not all resort to eating cat food and live on the wrong side of the tracks either. In a number of instances the non SAHP has two jobs in order that one parent is there to raise their children full time. In other cases the family does make sacrafices to have one parent be home full time. Things such as no cabale, infrequent vacations, using generic brands, home made VS store bought items, and the list goes on are small sacrafices to make to be able to raise your own children. Not everyone agrees with this and many couples are more inclined to have possessions rather than parent themselves. Others as you stated simply can't afford to be without two salaries. As far as me jumping for joy over my H's affair and moving out..... I do believe your remarks here are a tad bit insensitive. No he isn't perfect. No, he isn't into rasing children. Yes, he is a salt of the earth type and very old fashined and some might say old world in his beliefs. But does that mean I shouldn't love him? Does that mean I don't want my marriage to work out? Nope. I guess if outsiders took a look at some of the horiffic things being done to the people who post here by their spouses, they might have the same comment you had for me for them. Yes, my H cheated. Yes, I have more bussiness savy than he does. Yes my income was greater than his untill I retired. Yes, he is against daycare. But are those things so awful to make me want to divorce him? I think not. I don't know nonplused, when it all comes down to the brass tacks it's the children that we need to be concerned with first and foremost. And if the betrayer looses custody and is the one who made all or the majority of the money during the course of the marriage just where does that leave the children? Living off 20% of the betrayers income, when they used to enjoy a much larger porion? I would hope that even the cruelist of betrayers would consider their children. Of course this is not the case. All too often when a marriage fails money takes precedence over everything *including* the well being of the children.Fingers Crossed

How do you take a society that is as far gone as Western society and suddenly make it substantially less adulterous?Simple. The same cure that's been done over and over again down through the ages...Wreck the economy. This immediately lowers people's expectations of life to basic survival. Religious conviction and community closeness in neighborhoods goes through the roof. Expectations is the root of all adultery.

I don't agree that being a SAHM versus working is necessarily a choice. Where I live, daycare for a toddler costs about $50 a day. If your income is very low, you can qualify for subsidized daycare, and if your income is very high, you can afford $50 a day. But for the many people in the middle, having both parents work just doesn't pay.You can say that they aren't preschoolers very long, but that is not always the case - we have had at least one preschooler for 19 years. Yes, it was our choice to have a lot of kids, and for me to leave the workforce, but my decisions were made based on the information that I had at the time - a husband who never indicated that there were any major problems in our marriage, who never even hinted that he was going to leave - probably because he did not plan to, a husband who said he would like to have had even more kids if we could have afforded it.

Interesting take, Cuckold.....------------------ BB [This message has been edited by WilliamJ (edited January 30, 2000).]

Cuckold, You are right. However, I for one would like to come to an end. Judgement day would solve the problem forever.------------------ God Bless, Rob regilmor@swbell.net

Wreck the economy? Judgement day? In retrospect, living through my wife leaving me for another man doesn't sound all that bad...

Fingers Crossed,Sorry about the insensitive remarks. I was perhaps reading too much in to your description of your husband, and the nature of your relationship, in your earlier post. It was more one sided than this more recent description.I think we have wandered around to an agreement on some points. There should be a consideration for the situation of the custodial parent's lifestyle after a divorce. I guess we are only arguing about the period of time it is reasonable to maintain that lifestyle via support payments.I don't agree with in anyway trying the support payments to "adultery". Facts are, most of the time (89% to be exact) the mother keeps the children. Half of the time (50% I would guess), it is the mother who was adulterous. If we assume that all of the 11% of men who get the children did so because their wife cheated, that would still leave 39% of the children out their with no support payments at all. Alternatively, child custody would need to be determined by an "adultery test", with the faithful partner getting custody. I could just see all the cheating wives out their hiring beautiful hookers to seduce their husbands. It gets messy.I think this is why courts in general tend to ignore the "cause" of the divorce and focus on a reasonable equity distribution.Another interesting point, often neglected, is the lifestyle of the children when they are with the non custodial parent. When we were negotiating spousal support payments, my lawyer was quite adamant, and successfully so, that my ability to pay was limited by the fact that I had to be able to care for my children properly when they were with me. That meant a certain sized apartment, a car that had room for my kids, furniture, etc. Also, "spending" money should work out to about the same while support was being paid. Apparently this is pretty typical for courts to rule this way. The ex's lawyer didn't argue. I think for the average person the net effect is that child support and spousal support adds up to approximately 1/2 of the payer's after tax income. So if your husband makes $4000 a month clear you could reasonably expect $2000, stepped down to basic child support over a period of time.He also has to pay a proportionate share of the child care costs once you start working.In my case, I paid spousal support and currently pay lots of child support (some people live off this kind of cash), and I was faithful until after separation. I met a girl some months later, but I had not previously known her prior to that time, so she could not possibly have been a factor in the separation. My wife's boyfriend, on the other hand, probably was.So how fair is that? Here I am paying spousal support to the cheating woman who kicked me out of my own house and separated me from my own children, so she could take here new boyfriend to "Delaware" to see "George Thorogood". I bet she even paid for his beer with my support payments. I know he was keeping it in my beer fridge. Do I seem bitter? I have found it is not the best thing to get myself going on this subject. The system isn't just unfair to moms. It seems unfair to everybody. [This message has been edited by nonplused (edited February 01, 2000).][This message has been edited by nonplused (edited February 01, 2000).]

nonplused,Sadly, you are a poster child of everything that's wrong with the child support system. I could tell as I read your story that you are a victim of the notorious "income shares" system of awarding child support. This system practically guarantees child support awards that exceed actual costs, and the custodial parent is under no obligation whatsoever to actually account for costs.The solution is simple, but implementing it will be difficult, I admit. We need to move to a default of joint physical custody with no money ever changing hands. Doing this would remove the financial incentive (and lets be honest, there *is* a financial incentive) for women to divorce and use part of the child support money to support themselves and their new boyfriend.I understand Fingers Crossed's concern that a SAHM's skillset might need updating, but that can be handled through alimony. The child support system should never be a living subsidy to the custodial parent, but in many cases that's exactly what's happening. What outrages me are cases like nonplused's, where a wife walks out, takes the kids, and proceeds to financially rape her husband for years afterwards. Its just plain sick, and it should be stopped.BystanderBystander

Fingers crossed,You asked if one of your options would be to "keep your career and watch your spouse get eaten alive from the inside?" Apparently, your H didn't care about YOUR insides being eaten out from the inside when his selfish needs (and your inability to stand up to him) kept you from enjoying the fruit of your labors outside of the home. All talk here has been strictly financial, who makes more, who does more, blah, blah. What about the intangibles of working and making a living? Those intangibles you, in part, denied yourself, when you chose not to work, or as you've stated, when YOU chose to do as your husband told you to do. The reason why more men don't stay home and take care of the children is not because they can't or don't know how, but because whomever has the money has the power in the relationship, IMHO, and they know that. If both people are in agreement, fine. Whatever works for them. However,when I see men who insist on their wives staying home, I've got to wonder if something else is going on. As we've all seen here, childcare is unpaid labor and not something you can put on your resume if times get tough. By letting your husband take care of all of the financial provisions, you're pretty much at his mercy, or the mercy of the courts. You're finding this out now, and it sucks. Whenever you place the responsibility for your life in someone else's hands, you take the risk that they will not always have your best interests at heart. Your husband doesn't appear to care one bit about your interests, otherwise he could not have asked you to sacrifice your career. Way,way too many women put the needs of their husbands over their own (like constantly), while the husbands more or less do whatever they want, like travel for extended periods, come home late, hang out with the buds on weekends, act like slugs around the house and contribute little or nothing to housework or childcare. Your H has a nice job, has kids, and had you to take care of him. He provided a paycheck. Pretty sucky deal if you ask me. You can do better. Although I agree that children generally do better in the care of a parent than in day care, I think they do fine either way. A mom staying home does not insure success in any case. If that were true, all welfare moms who stay home would have the best kids around. We all know that is not true. Your kids are not going to turn into axe-murderers if you get a job. sheesh.

Bystander,No money changing hands?! After working only part-time almost all of my adult life (25 years), I am never going to make anywhere near the income my H does. On an hourly basis, I make less than half what he does. In my state, it is extremely rare to grant alimony as well as child support. And the custodial parent normally pays the child care expenses. When my H left, few of the household expenses decreased - it doesn't cost one bit less to heat a house occupied by 7 people than it does to heat the same house occupied by 8. About the only thing that I spend less on is food. Meanwhile, he does not have to support an entire household. I imagine he contributes to the OW's household expenses, but what he contributes is undoubtedly far less than what I spend. How can you say that child support covers more than the actual costs? The child support that I receive doesn't nearly cover what it costs to raise six children.nonplused,I think 50% is way to high an estimate for the percentage of cheaters who are women. I think it is much closer to 25 or 30%. And when women do leave their husbands, the children are on the average, older than when husbands leave, so childcare is easier to find and less expensive. [This message has been edited by Nellie1 (edited February 01, 2000).]

Cuckold,Wreck the economy??? Sorry, but it seems that when referring to the "western world" and "the economy" most people here are talking about the US; I live in Mexico and my entire adult life (since '76 when I was 21) has gone from one National financial crisis to the next one, and here and adultery is not only "normal" but widely accepted as a fact of life; in my case, our financial situation in the last few years and specially in '99 were one of the triggers for my wife's affair.nonplused: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I don't agree with in anyway trying the support payments to "adultery". Facts are, most of the time (89% to be exact) the mother keeps the children. Half of the time (50% I would guess), it is the mother who was adulterous. If we assume that all of the 11% of men who get the children did so because their wife cheated, that would still leave 39% of the children out their with no support payments at all. Alternatively, child custody would need to be determined by an "adultery test", with the faithful partner getting custody. I could just see all the cheating wives out their hiring beautiful hookers to seduce their husbands. It gets messy.I think this is why courts in general tend to ignore the "cause" of the divorce and focus on a reasonable equity distribution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In the state where I live 99% of the time the mother keeps the children; the only possibility for a father to keep them is documented adultery (accepted documents? photos taken in the presence of a public notary who "gives faith" = the notary says it's the truth. (a notary public in Mexico is not just a clerk, he is a lawyer who after going to notary school applies for a Notary, when one position is available he can be chosen by the state government among several candidates and be appointed for life; once appointed they can no longer act as attorneys unless they give up the notary or ask for time off. If they testify something unlawful or proven unreal they lose the notary license, cannot go back to perform as regular lawyers and could even be thrown in jail; he is not part of government and yet both government and private institutions and individuals respect his word as been the truth). Other proof like witnesses could be useless because the cheating spouse could always introduce witnesses (real or fake) to testify otherwise.If the cheated spouse doesn't have these "documents" he could sue for "necessary divorce", but according to the local Civil Code should the judge rules a necessary divorce, the HUSBAND (it doesn't matter who cheated) must leave the household within 3 days, or else "the public force" (read police) will get him out; when he leaves he can take his clothes & toiletry and only those personal belongings absolutely indispensable for his work.Now right now this other one is in my favor (but not in the favor of any cheated wife): If the parties (read husband and wife) don't agree on the amount of alimony then the judge shall determine it to be "the legal alimony"… how much? MEX$1,000 —some US$110 PER MONTH!!! If she doesn't take it then the husband can deposit it in a local civil court and notify the ex-wife so she can pick it up at anytime.It is not only that we have to educate ourselves, but we have to do something about changing the way our children are educated in school & have to do lot of lobbying to change the Law.Alex------------------ Live and learn

Nellie1, I'm sorry you are unable to meet expenses from your child support award, but the question wasn't whether you or nonplused are getting the worse deal. The question is how do we discourage adultery. My answer is that we change the child support system to disincent women from getting a child support windfall if they decide to shack up with some OM. As far as your earning power being less than your husband's, my guess is that was a joint decision you both made some time ago. Yes, he reneged on the deal, and I can see the merit in an alimony judgment to update your skillset. But children aren't chattel, and they shouldn't be used as a veiled form of alimony, either. That's why I think joint physical custody (each parent has the children exactly half of the time) with no money ever changing hands should be the default. The burden of proof to deviate from this should be pretty high on the parent seeking custody, and in any event, no money in excess of documented costs should ever be paid. IMO, THAT would disincent adultery. Bystander

Bystander, I read the first post and thought maybe I misunderstood you, but then I read the second and knew that I didn't. About the joint custody/no child support issue: In my case my children have a father who sees them about 3 hours every other weekend, by choice. AND he lives with another woman, who just happens to be an alcoholic and a heavy drug user. I am supposed to let my children spend equal time in that environment???? I don't think so. They have never been around her and NEVER will be. At this point we don't have any ordered child support or visitations. It's "easier" for my H to give me a good bit of money than to actually take care of them himself. Sorry but this will not deter adultery in most cases. The only thing it will do is make life more difficult for the children and the parents who WANT to take care of them. You can't force someone to spend time with their children, no matter what!

I'd take my kids full time if I could. I could afford it too, even if I didn't get a stinking penny from my ex. Probably get one of them live-in nannies or something. But that option was never realistically available to me.Right now I see my kids Fri - Sun every 2nd weekend, one evening in the week (in my old house, how wierd is that? I put them to bed), and usually 1/2 a day on the weekends I don't have them. I also pay half the child care costs. I figure I have them about 40% of the time they are awake and not at daycare, not counting mornings.I don't think there is any question the financial insentive is the primary motivator for my ex to avoid joint custody on a 50/50 basis. She would have to sell her house, and drastically reduce her lifestyle. I, on the other hand, could afford all that and a new Porsche. Well, maybe a Grand Cherokee.

Mitzi, If you can document that the OW is really a heavy drug user, then that would be sufficient to deviate from a default of joint physical custody with no money ever changing hands. As nonplused notes above, even though he *wanted* his kids 50% of the time, he was never given that option. And the reason? Because his wife is cashing in on the notorious "income shares" model of awarding child support. You're right that you can't *make* someone spend time with their kids, and in those cases child support for *documented* expenses is justified. But lets not kid ourselves about this. When a woman moves out, takes the kids, and files for child support, the odds are very good that she's receive far more (after taxes) than she really needs. And the balance goes right into her pocket. Remove that incentive, and the relative "price" of infidelity will rise, and its rate will fall accordingly. Bystander

Bystander,It is not just a matter of "updating my skillset". It would probably take at least 15 years to catch up to my H in terms of work experience, by which time I will be over sixty. Yes, we did agree that I would work part-time - something I would not have agreed to had I known he was going to leave. I also would not have given up a good job to follow him to another state. I would not have cashed in my retirement to help him go into business. Joint custody is not practical when the parents live an hour apart - and that was his choice. And how can you say no money changing hands would be fair, when I have to pay all the expenses for my household, while he has to pay at most half of the expenses for the household in which he lives? What you are saying is that whenever you get tired of supporting your family, it is ok to go find someone richer to share expenses with, upgrade your standard of living, only have to support your kids half the time, and leave your spouse in the dust. Even if I earned as much as he does, my disposable income would still be far lower than his. The point is that the "left" spouse is also left with household expenses that are nearly as high as they were when there were two adults, but no one to share them with. nonplused, I think it was you who mentioned 50% of the working spouses' after tax income as a maximum amount of support for the SAHM or SAHD and children. How can it be fair for one person to get 50% of the income, while the other 50% is shared among 7? Or even 2 or 3?

Bystander, It is well documented that she is a heavy drug userWhere I live (WV) child support amounts suck, no matter who is getting the support. My H gives me $300 a week for 3 children on his own. If I had it court ordered, I would probably only get about 1/2 that. No I would not be pocketing anything. It is very rare in this area to get a judgement better than that. I might be able to get alimony from him but it would be a minimal amount. So actually he is getting off easy. And he was the one who is having the affair.

Mitzi:If the OW is a heavy drug user, that's clearly a case that should deviate from a joint physical custody (with no money changing hands) default. I'm in agreement with you on this - remember, my position is that joint physical custody (with no money changing hands) should be the default, not the iron-clad outcome. I wouldn't want my kids being exposed to a heavy drug user, either.Nellie:My first point is that there should be a default of joint physical custody. If your husband willingly waives this to live elsewhere, then that's a different matter. What I seek in my position is a way to prevent women like nonplus'ed wife from cashing in on an "income shares" child support windfall by using blatant court biases against men and *unilaterally* seizing custody of children. And let me again stress: this IS a windfall for many women, because "income shares" awards often grossly exceed actual costs. All a woman needs to do is check the monthly budget, check her husband's paycheck, and figure out how far ahead she'll be. Are we really sure we want to send THAT kind of a signal to people?Anyhow, I think your complaints about the finances fall into two classes. The first is that you are facing high fixed-costs to maintain a household, and the second has to do with some sense of injustice that your husband is now "doing better" than you.The fixed cost argument has some merit, but what is appropriate child support? The fact is, you'd have to live somewhere even if kids weren't involved. The proper calculation of child support would be half of the marginal cost of additional living space, and most definitely not simply half (or weighted by income?) of your total expenses. If this lowers your disposable income, then the proper redress is though alimony and updating your skillset, and *not* through using children as chattel and a veiled form of essentially open-ended alimony via the child support system. Complaints that "alimony isn't granted here" simply mean that such laws need to be modified, too.About the "injustice" angle. Lets say you met a multimillionare and eventually married this man. He has a 40-room mansion, and plenty of rooms for all the kids. Is it justified for you to keep taking 50% of your husband's paycheck? Of course not. But you could keep collecting it, and that's exactly how the laws are written right now. Would you keep collecting it under those circumstances?The fact is, the income of the second spouse - whether custodial or non-custodial - is not considered in child support calculations. Far more interesting of a dilemma is when an ex-spouse has a child with a second spouse. Should child support payments be reduced to the first spouse? One the one hand, the first spouse almost certainly budgeted to receive some money. On the other hand, why should the child of the second marriage have a reduced claim to the parent's earning stream? After all, that child is innocent and has done no harm to anyone. Btw, I don't have an answer to this dilemma. The laws basically say that the children in the second marriage lose out, but I'm not convinced that's fair, either.In my own case, if my spouse and I separated, the *mandatory* monthly child support amount would exceed our entire monthly household budget, including mortgage, taxes, insurance, food, and utilities! This is the kind of bizarre outcome (I'm just assuming you see the patent injustice in such an outcome) is precisely what happens when expenses are totally ignored and impoverishing mathematical forumlae are applied to income. Such windfalls should be impossible, and *making them impossible* would go a long way towards raising the "price," and hence discouraging, infidelity. That nonplused's wife's boyfriend is chugging beer on nonplused's nickel is morally wrong, and we should change that.Bystander

Bystander,It used to bother me considerably that my "wife's boyfriend" was chugging beer on my nickle. I would go over to look after the kids for a night, and there would be his brand of beer, right there in my beer fridge.I'm going through a phase right now where I think the support is a small price to pay to have her off of my back. Plus it put a limit to the amount she could take out of my account in a given month. She was a lot more expensive to be married to than divorced from.Still, the injustice is there. That money belongs to the kids, not the boy-pond-scum-sucking-friend. Considerring she recently depleated the kid's entire college fund to "make ends meet", I think it's ridiculous that she can take her boyfriend on vacation in almost the same breath.But, until the kids turn 12, they have no rights to decide for themselves. Even then it's complicated. My only hope is she meets somebody even more crazy than the last boyfriend and they decide to run away together. They could leave the kids with me no problems at all no questions asked and could you just sign this before you go please? Thank you.

Nonplused, I'm really sorry for the crap that your wife has put you thru. I do not take money from my H to live off of. I take care of my kids with it. There is a part of me that would like to take everything he has but what good would that do me? I would still be unhappy. (Even though he's the one having the affair and I get angry when I think that he may be buying stuff for her). I was never an extravagant spender. I paid the bills and bought what the kids needed and hardly ever bought myself anything. I always felt guilty if I bought anything else for me. I could always think of other things to do with the money other than buying myself that new pair of shoes. I can honestly say that I did without out things so that I did without things the whole time we were married.It looks like we're all in the same boat. Pi**ed off at the spouse!

nonplused:Call me a wild-eyed dreamer, but I'd like to end the kind of abuse you're enduring. And a default of joint physical custody (with no money changing hands) would be a huge step in the right direction. What you're going through is morally wrong, and it angers me. Mitzi:You did the irght thing keeping your children away from a heavy drug user. Also, I can tell that you'd have absolutely no problem accounting for everything you spend on your children. This tells me a lot about how you value fairness, even when faced with something as unfair as having a partner betray you. You're a good person, and it shows.Bystander

The OM who had an affair with my wife was her gynocologist. I am still considering a lawsuit if my marriage breaks up. He knew better and knew what he was doing.

Bystander, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The fact is, the income of the second spouse - whether custodial or non-custodial - is not considered in child support calculations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is not the case in my state. The custodial parent is allowed to subtract $15000 plus daycare expenses from his/her income. The remainder is figured as a percentage of total income, and the basic child support amount is reduced by that much. For example, if both spouses earned $50000 a year, the ratio would be 35000/100000, or 35%. The originally calculated child support amount would be reduced by 35%. In my case, the marginal cost for additional housing space is very high. The cost of housing for one person is far lower than that for seven. What do you think custodial parents spend all that "extra" money on? Yes, I do eat every day, and I have actually spent as much as twenty dollars on a dress for myself. I spend almost all of what little disposable income I have the same way I have always spent it - on the children.You are lucky that the mandatory child support amount would exceed your monthly budget. Unfortunately, for us, our monthly expenses exceed not only child support, but my H's entire take-home pay.

Nellie,My writing was ambiguous. When I said that the income of the second spouse isn't counted in child support payments, I mean the income of the new wife (and/or new husband) doesn't count. Example: Person A marries Person B. They have children, and Person A files for divorce to be with an OP, who we'll call Person C. The notorious "income shares" awards account for the income of Persons A and B in calculating income, but not the income of Person C.Which brings me to the point that if you married a multimillioniare, you could, under the current law, continue to take 50% of your husband's pay, even though *you* would then be "doing better" than him.There's another huge problem with the income shares system, too. Its really a form of slavery because the awards are based on "earning capacity" and courts will assign an "imputed income" onto noncustodial parents. This can lead to some very interesting, and morally indefensible, outcomes. Say your husband is a nuclear engineer who can earn $100k a year in a nuke plant, but only $50k a year in a non-nuke plant job. Now, lets say his doctor has just found evidence that he's very likely to get leukemia if he contines to be exposed to radiation at the nuke plant. For health reasons, he needs to switch jobs to the $50k position, but if he does that the notorious "income shares/imputed income" laws will expect him to continue paying child support at the $100k, and he'll soon be bankrupt and thrown in jail. Is it moral to tell this man that he faces radiation to death or an inevitable felony conviction plus jail time, all in the name of "income shares?" I just don't think so.As for me being "lucky" that the child support would cover all the bills, perhaps you missed my point. Specifically, such an award would amount to a *total living subsidy* for my spouse. Child support is supposed to pay for half of the children's expenses, not serve as a veiled form of near-perpetual alimony. Such a judgment would be ridiculously unfair, but that's how the laws have been written.Again, my overall point is this. Someone asked the question, "What would lower the rate of adultery?" I firmly believe that, *on average*, the "income shares" system awards far too much money in child support, and any woman in a suboptimal, but functional marriage, can simply check the budget, check her husband's paycheck, see how far she'll be ahead financially, and then go out and find herself an OM. If we want to help stop this incentive (and stop the kind of abuse that nonplused is enduring), then we'll move to a default of joint physical custody with no money changing hands. It won't always apply, but the mere fact that a betrayed husband could say, "I want the kids exactly half the time, and thus you'll get NO support" should change the hedonistic calculus in favor of less infidelity.Bystander

Won't help a woman cheated on by her hesband though. In my opinion there is no way to tie adultery or any othe marraige crime to the financial settlement. Besides, if you can tie that in, why not other minor marriage crimes. Next thing you know we'll be trying to figure out who ironed who's shirts how ofter and how much that was worth, how many times she said "no", how many times he came home drunk, etc, etc. Maybe there could be a table for that too, like the child support table:Came home drunk 1 night/week $50/month Sex 3 times/week 100/month Commited adultery 6000/month +castration Child support 1000/month Spoke badly of mother in law 42/month Annoying personality 13/month Cruel weight jokes 167/month I like the idea of no money at all changing hands though. That way I would get the money back, which I can do with out, and the kids back, which i can't.

I don't think that there is really anyway to decrease adultry in the US. How could it possibly happen when our own President commits it and gets away scott-free.In the military adultry IS a FELONY, if the members of the US Military commit adultry they are strictly, and harshly punished to the extent of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This ruins their career, costs' them their pay,cost them their rank, they can be discharged, and even imprisoned.(trust me, my W found out the hard way) I think that if the civillian community were to adopt some of the regulations that the military has about adultry, repeat offenders would be no more, and would be offenders would give it more thought. Just my 2 cents JW

nonplused,I agree with you that its infeasible to retroactively tie marriage crimes to a financial settlement. But that's not my point.I think the "income shares" system of awarding child support (on average) *does* award more support than is needed. Thus, it financially incents women in suboptimal marriages to leave, rather than stay and work on the marriage. Again, do we really want women to check the budget, check the husband's paycheck, see how far ahead they'll be, and then check their little black book for an OM's cellphone number? IMO, that's exactly what we're doing now.You say it won't help women betrayed by men, but I'm not really sure how you'd want to help these women anyhow. Is a betrayed woman entitled to a living subsidy just because her husband earns slightly more than she does? If you'll say yes to that, then we're back to the issue of trying to tie marriage crimes to the financial settlement. And we already agreed we can't go there. So my argument would be that moving to a default of joint custody basically takes the finances out of the equation, regardless of which gender is the betrayer.And another reason I believe in a default of joint physical custody with no money changing hands: I really think its better for the kids.Bystander

NonplusedYou are correct a 50/50 child custody with *no money changing hands* would not help a woman cheated on by her H. Actually that would be more of an INCENTIVE to *some* people who want to commit adultery. After all not only would they be able to wash their hand of their spouse but they could do so without having to put out one dime towards the children's support when they are with the other parent.I still believe financial consequences can be in part affective for some, when it comes to adultery. Think about it... if you wife who was a SHAM would have known if she had an affair and divorced you she would not only NOT be the custodial parent but she would also have to support the kids 100% when they were spending time with her AND living with you perhaps she would have had second thoughts about going down the wrong path.As far as the cute little list of wrong doings and the penilties you proposed... Very funny, ridiculous, but funny none the less. BystanderNo offense intended but if you haven't already spent A LOT of time posting in the news group alt.childsupport (and your writtings smack of the men who post there) I highly suggest you head on over there (of course with the knowledge you can post supportive and vent about your marriage and how adultery is/was affecting it on MB's). You'll find a lot of angry men who will hang on your every word.You are correct when you stated the question was what will help decrease adultery. Unfortunately the answer you gave could actualy help increase it. At no point did I want or even imagine this post would turn into a soap box for the debates on spousal and child support.The purpose of this group is to work on building our marriages in the face of adultery. The debate of child and spousal support are not a way to help hurting people save their marriages or end them as easily as possible. I'd like to see this thread locked by Steve Harely if the conversation continues to debate support issues. I don't want to be associated with a topic that ends up being hurtful to read vs helpful.Fingers Crossed (who isn't usually this assertive to others but is very concerned about the directions this topic is now going in)

Sweetpea,What you're proposing is essentially the "income shares" model. I've already mentioned the problems it has - it incents infidelity, it is a veiled form of open-ended alimony (why should the husband support the wife at all, morally speaking?), it forces people to work in horrible jobs because of "imputed income" laws, and so on.And I disagree that a joint physical custody (with no money changing hands) would be worse for the kids. The way the system is set up now, a noncustodial parent has to pay the full child support amount regardless of how much time they actually have the kids. So a father who has the kids 49.99999% of the time STILL has to make the full monthly child support payment, yet has the kids essentially half of the time and all of the costs associated with having the kids half of the time. Do you know what kind of behavior this incents? Abdication! After awhile, people get tired of paying twice for their kids (once in child support, the other in actual out of pocket costs), and they walk away. Its easy to point fingers at people who walk away, and call them "creeps," etc, but why don't we point fingers at women who snicker all the way to the bank from their child support windfalls? Why don't we hold people accountable for precisely what's spent on the children, and have any excess returned?If you want to slow down infidelity, take the financial rewards out of it. IMO.Bystander

Sweetpea,The crux of your "roof over their heads" argument is that the children should have a decent standard of living. This isn't a bad objective per se, but I think its flatly immoral to expect one spouse to indefintely pay for another spouse's standard of living. Truthfully, I don't believe a system like you suggest would ever be justified. I'd rather face the prospect of unequal financial outcomes for the spouses than the current evils we're seeing now...not the least of which is that the "income shares" system actually incents women to betray their husbands.Anyhow, I've already said that income imbalances should be addressed through alimony (to update the skillset of the lower earner), and most explicitly NOT through child support. True, one spouse's income may "never catch up" with the other spouse, but that's a consequence of a joint decision made years ago. The message we should send women is, "Ladies, protect yourselves by getting a good job" and not, "Ladies, check the monthly budget, check your husband's paycheck, see how far ahead you'll be, and then call up that OM!"Bystander

Sweetpea,I don't believe that one spouse should ever be expected to support the other spouse at all. Conceptually, I think you agree that such support is immoral (which is why you pointed out that such support ends when the last child is 18), but you're willing to set aside that immorality in the name of children's standard of living. Simply put, I disagree with you on this issue. You are arguing that the children shouldn't suffer, and the price you're willing to pay is the long litany of "income shares" abuses that we've already discussed. But a child isn't a meat ticket for a woman, and treating them as such, as the system currently does, is just plain sick IMO. The way the system is set up, as soon as a woman gets pregnant, she can basically tell the father, "Ha! You fool! I've got 25% of your net income for the next 20 years, chump! Your a$$ is mine, pal, and there's nothing you can do to stop me!" And you know what? Her meal ticket *is* basically in the bank. Pardon me for opposing laws that would ever permit this kind of sickening conduct.My position is that we'd be less likely to even be worrying about child support if we'd take away the incentives for betrayal that are already out there now. And I disagree that golddiggers are the only ones who can do the math - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to check the budget, check the husband's paycheck, check the surplus, and start calling an OM as soon as the marriage looks a little rocky. If we want to discourage infidelity, we should take the incentives away.And I also believe that joint physical custody (with no money changing hands) will be far better for the children. It will disincent the current system's perverse tendency to encourage men to walk away from their children. The only person who "loses" is arguably a SAHM, but as I've said, she's entitled to alimony to update her skillset. But if its alimony we're talking about, lets at least drop the charade of calling alimony a transfer "for the children's standard of living."Bystander

I am closing this thread for several reasons. 1: It has 96 posts and keeps growing. 2: The person who began it requested that I do so. 3: It has strayed from what the original poster intended and no longer seems to have much to do with infidelity nor with marriage building.Please write to me if you have any questions about this action. Thank you.------------------ Tempest, Moderator Marriage Builders Infidelity Forum