Wow<P>My only input is that I wish the <BR>OP would be able to be held partly responsible. <BR> <BR>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)<P>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><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>All the documents written by the framers of our Constitution support Christianity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Where? Name one place. That the framers were Christian doesn't mean the documents support it.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>We have liberalized our beliefs to include these other religions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>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.<P>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.<P><BR><p>[This message has been edited by Dazed and Confused (edited January 27, 2000).]

Dazed and Confused:<P>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.<P>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. <P>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.<P>Slavery was actually left out of the Constitution and corrected with an amendment later because the wording in the Constitution did not preclude it. <P>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.<P><B>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.</B><P>MONDO HUG!!!!! LOL!!!!!<P>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. <BR>------------------<BR><B><I>God Bless,<BR>Rob</I></B><P>[This message has been edited by professorg (edited January 27, 2000).]<P>[This message has been edited by professorg (edited January 27, 2000).]<p>[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.<P>However, I do find certain aspects interesting. Why try so hard to <I>deter</I> infidelity? That's like saying you believe that it's going to happen, no matter what. Instead, why not encourage honesty within relationships?<P>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.<P>However, should one break the marriage contract:<P><I>1) Loose custody of your children</I><P>I 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?<P><I>2) You will pay spousal support untill your spouse remarries.</I><P>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).<P><I>3) You are 100% responcible for the support of any children until they are 21 or no longer a full time student.</I><P>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.<P><I>4)The innocent spouse gets all of the marrital possesions and monies. (including marital home)</I><P>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.<P><I>5) The adulterer gets all the marital debt.And naturally the need to work thier buns off to support the whole thing. </I><P>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.<P>All of what I've suggested only places emphasis upon <I>responsibility</I> rather than <I>culpability.</I> Anybody else see and appreciate the difference? Why punish? Instead we should try and enlighten people as to their responsibilities.<P><I>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><P>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).<P>JM2CW<P>------------------<BR>~~ Elixir ~~<P>

Well now, this thread has certainly been a heated one. Thought I would toss my hat into the ring. <P>First, this quote got my dander up<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The purpose of separation of church and state in the US constitution was to get religion out of the government.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>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. <P>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." <P>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. <P>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).<P>1. My kids have been told not to pray in school. <BR>2. My kids have been told they are not allowed to say the name Jesus in school.<BR>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.<BR>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. <BR>5. They celebrate Hanukah, yet Christmas is a Winter Festival.<P>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<BR>rights when they enter the school yard. We're just looking for equal acceptance. <P>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. <P>OK, off that soap box. Don't get me started on the Biblical aspect of adultery. I think Rob handled that pretty well. <P>So, how do we decrease adultery? Beats the poop out of me. If I knew that, I wouldn't be here.<P>SHA<p>[This message has been edited by Sir Hurts Alot (edited January 27, 2000).]

Elixir<P>I am not interested in punishment either.<P>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.<P>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?<P><BR>When I typed the things you quoted I was suffering from a bit of tunnel vision, I believe. <P>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. <P>For me I stand by what I wrote.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>We do agree on the custody suggestion and you explained it wonderfully.<P>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.<P>This is probably more than you wanted to know about me and my beliefs but I felt a need to explain my reasoning.<P>Fingers Crossed<P><BR>

Elixir,<P>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. <P>Hitler was mentioned in this post somewhere. He supposedly was a strict vegetarian,but he obviously had no regard for ALL living things. <P>Fingers crossed,<P>"He didn't want me working when I was still of the age I was marketable."<P>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. <P><p>[This message has been edited by fly (edited January 27, 2000).]

Fly<P>Actually 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.<P>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. <P>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. <P>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.<P>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.<P>Fingers Crossed

I'm sorry you are going through this. I'm glad you are encouraging your daughters to be self-sufficient<p>[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.<P>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.<P>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!"<P>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.<P>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.<P>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."<P>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.<P>

Student<P>Thanks for your kind words.<P>Yes, my daughters are very strong! I just hope they aren't so srong they scare off the men that come into their lives. <P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>Alex<P>------------------<BR>Live and learn<BR>

Excellent discussion!!<P>I'm gonna sound like one of those, "If we all had a candle, what a bright world it would be" people...<P>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. <P>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? <B>NO</B>.<P>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. <B>MY CHOICE</B>. So, in my opinion, the only true deterent to having an affair is yourself.<P>I'm nuts, right?

Sheryl,<BR>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.<P>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.<P>Nonplused, <BR>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.<P>------------------<BR><B><I>God Bless,<BR>Rob</I></B><BR> regilmor@swbell.net

nonplused,<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A woman who decides to stay at home and live off the labor of another is<BR> not automatically entitled to life long support. There is an implicit child rearing contract<BR> associated with the arrangement<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>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. <P>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.<P>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. <P>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.

Nonplused<P>What Nellie said....and.......<P>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......<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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....?<P>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. 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. <P>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. <P>Perhaps you can better understand *my* postion now. <P>If not I guess me can agree to disagree on this one. <P><BR>Fingers Crossed<BR>(who wiped her own bum, those of her children, AND her husband)<P>

I think the suggestion that we all just agree to disagree is a good one.<P>Some excellent points have been made in this discussion, but there are definitely some things that rub me the wrong way.<P>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).<P>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?<P>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.<P>If I had been asked this question four months ago, my answer probably would have been castration! But I'm a lot calmer now.<P>Philosophical discussions are great, but GOOD GRIEF, let's put this one to rest.<P>My opinion only.<P>Peppermint<P><p>[This message has been edited by peppermint (edited January 28, 2000).]

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

Fingers crossed,<P>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.<P>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.<P>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. <P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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."<P>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.<P>Strangely, they seem to prefer my apartment. Probably because I let them eat too many "pizza-pops".<P>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.<P>Nellie,<P>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".<P>Professorg,<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>Peppermint,<P>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!<P><BR>Obviously I am having a slow day. I just re-read this and must apologize for the length.<BR><p>[This message has been edited by nonplused (edited January 29, 2000).]

<BR>I want to say something about the point on SAHM's. Don't take offense. This is just how my life is.<P>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. <P>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. <P>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. <P>Not all one income families are destitute. We may not have much but we are happy with what we do have. <P>Mitzi