Divorce Because Of

1. I work with what informaton I'm given. And with the info she gave, one must make the best assumption they can. Sorry you are unable to see that.
2. I'm not the only one that criticised her for that. Maybe you should go after them too? Since you seem to be criticizing anyone who doesn't share your viewpoints towards the OP.
3. I reserve the right to not give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

And I'd appreciate you easing up off the condescending remarks because of it. Do you see me sitting her condescending you for standing up for her? Don't think so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have to ignore the sexist idiot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Comon Tiassa, you ever read Orleander's posts? They are ALL troll trap or troll bait. Or just trollin...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This and that

The evolution of marriage is a curious history ... it would probably be easiest to point you to an old post of mine (#1145806/7) than try to rehash it here. Suffice to say, while I believed the ownership theory before, my view on that has been changing. The purpose of marriage has, historically, been the collection of in-laws. Admittedly, the daughters still got shafted in this model, and were far and away the most exploited, but everyone was being used in some way. The parents of the daughters stood to be used the least.

I highly recommend Stephanie Coontz's Marriage, A History, which is discussed in the post linked above. The book attempts to trace the history of marriage "from obedience to intimacy".

She's been known to annoy me before. But her behavior in this very discussion shoots the stones off your assessment. Orleander is one of the few people who gave the topic post the benefit of the doubt.

And, seriously, dude, given some of the shit we put up with around here, Orleander's "troll factor" is remarkably low. I mean, this topic alone has seen a few people checking in simply to be prigs about the topic post, chest-puffing about eloquence and wit in phallocentrism, open misogyny, advocacy of violence, and at least one hack who's pissed off that some women are tired of being disproportionately hurt by divorce.

• • •​

(1) And what you make of that information says more about you than anything else.
(2) Yes, but you came out and directly attempted to justify yourself.
(3) Indeed. Your standard is noted.

Hmm ... should I apply your standard here and not give you the benefit of the doubt? In other words, are you lying, or just stupid? In either case, of course, it amounts to the same general outcome. If it's simple ignorance, you're not capable of understanding the condescension in the extraneous second sentence of your first point noted above. Nor are you able to comprehend the condescension of deciding why I've criticized your contemptuous expressions. To the other, if it's a more complicated ignorance, you're just too stupid to figure out why lying is bad.

Or perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt—that's right, give you what you're unwilling to give Orleander—and simply remind you that the way to peace, progress, and prosperity is through our capacity for human sympathy. Had sympathy no place in the human endeavor, it would have selected out long ago. It would be easy enough to theorize that your focus on the injustice of dumping a man for being a bad f@ck reflects your own fears of inadequacy, but it is well enough to give you the benefit of the doubt and simply wonder if your desire to appear quick-witted simply blinded you to the obvious. And, hell, pretty much everyone does that from time to time.

So it's up to you, Mike. Which standard would you prefer?

 

thank you tiassa.

and Mike, I don't understand why you would assume the worst of me for breaking up with him when you have said about the same thing yourself, but with you being the bad lay. Why would it be ok for you to bail for this reason and not a woman?


I'd rather know if I can't give a woman an orgasm. That tells me that it's time to go find someone that I can
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1753127&postcount=62

 

from my gender to your gender thank you

 

Let me put it to you, and your little pal Orly.
1. I don't give a rat's ass what you think.
2. I already told you once, I'm not the only one who made my comments towards Orly given the lack of information she provided. So I know I'm not alone in this matter.

Actually I'm neither, and I really think you are grasping for straws. You seem to be just talking out your ass now.

Good lord. You and Tiassa are worse than my dogs for having to repeat shit to them over and over again. It's really getting tiresome.
First off, I said that I'm not going to wait a year for a girl to decide to have sex with me. That really doesn't correlate to your situation. Because I'm sure that my situation involves breaking up long before any engagement, let alone a wedding.
I've stopped seeing girls because they were bad kissers, but guess what, I didn't wait two fuckin years to do it; more like after only a few dates. I've known plenty of girls who stopped seeing guys (after one or a few dates as well) because they were bad kissers. I've nothing against them, because they didn't wait until after they were engaged to the guy to do it.
See the difference? Probably not.
Secondly, at no time when you initially brought this up, did you mention he was a total perv, it took you three pages and 8 post from when you first mentioned 'for sexual reasons' to actually say why. To me, that's something you might want to include in your statement. You don't want people assuming something? Either don't mention it at all, or be sure to include necessary information. Because no matter how you look at it, when you tell people that you called off a wedding because he was bad in bed (when you should have tested the waters way before that), they're going to put the blame on you. Funny thing is, is that if you hadn't had those morals, you would have found out he was a total perv much sooner and you wouldn't have wasted all that time with him.
Once again, notice that I wasn't the only one that thought as such.

At least I don't need anyone debating for me. If you can't fight your own battles, don't post.

 

I was hoping you might expound on the question that Shorty and I simulposted?

 

pls u have not answered well my question.DO NOT GO OFF TOPIC

 

Yes, I thought they were good questions.

 

hello shorty!

what questions did you ask?

-----------------

i ahve to admit that if i loved someone enough to marry them, i would not divorce them just because they were not good in bed, i would teach them, the only reason why i can think that you wouldn't teach them is, they've never talked about sex, best to ahve a laugh about sex.

 

Hey!

Posts 47, 48, 49 in regards to Orleanders answer.

 

because it was sexual and since we weren't having sex, it was easy to hide. :shrug:
And being a young innocent girl, it never occured to me to talk about it because it never occured to me that someone would do it. I mean, how many men have hidden the fact that they are gay and get married? Its not that hard to hide things about yourself. I think a lot of abused women can relate.
I am just so glad I found out before we got married.

 

I wouldn't either.

 

I really shouldn't waste my time on posts like yours, but ....

Noted.

Let's see here: you were first out of the gate (#11). You got an answer (12), but it wasn't enough for you (14). Orleander answered you (#8). You reiterated your sexual demands and made a general statement about women (19). Shorty checked in because, hell any chance to give Orleander shit is good for her (22). Orleander took exception to your generalization (25); Spud Emperor offered comments (26) both apt and supportive; Sowhatifit'sdark inquired about a certain detail (#27). Lucifer's Angel answered Shorty (28). Orleander answered Sowhatifit'sdark (29). Shorty responded to LA (30). Sowhatifit'sdark offered an assessment (31) that two tries seemed quick, but certain things could do the trick. LA continued riffing with Shorty on the notion of inexperienced, clumsy bad sex (32, 34, 35, 36). You responded to Orleander by suggesting she was not a "decent girl" (37). Shorty kept up with LA (38 and gave you a thumbs-up (39, and here's the thing, Mike: when it comes to criticizing Orleander, it's not a wise move to invoke Shorty for support. Those two, you might have noticed, are frequently at each other, as evidenced by her exchange with you (41, 42). I left your car comment alone in large part because I don't follow Jaguar culture, but it really does seem out of line°. LA joined the presumption (43), and then Orleander finally answered the issue (44, 45). Shorty asked what she thought was an obvious question (46); 15ofthe19 offered his thoughts and echoed the question (47); Shorty kept on with her own naivete (48). You proclaimed your right to judge (49). And at that point, for other people's "contributions", the topic took a serious turn for the worse.

And, see, I actually thought about getting out my green hat and castigating people for wasting so much time on stupid digressions, but then again, that's what tends to happen with topic posts like these. So I took up a few of the issues in black ink (62); Nietzschefan put in a worthy contribution to the general topic (63), and then you proceeded to make yourself look even more ridiculous (64). And, yes, you do have the right to look for the worst in everyone. And no, people are not obliged to think that makes you look smart. Which pretty much brings us up to date, as long as we include my response (67), Orleander's two cents (68), and your latest response (70), which, by the way, speaks only poorly of you. Such as this:

You seem to have missed a paragraph, Mike. Was that your plan, or would you like to try again?

Actually, Mike, what's tiresome is your piss-poor attitude. Do something about it.

Good for you. Why don't you write down a list of your sexual demands and give them to the woman up front, like, as you're introducing yourself for the first time.

I think it's incredibly stupid that you're getting offended because other people were raised and have lived according to different cultural standards. Orleander's way isn't mine, either. And I wouldn't put myself through that kind of relationship. But neither would I suggest, as you did in #19, that a woman who looked at relationships and sexuality differently not decent.

It only matters, Mike, to people like you who are desperate to judge their neighbors. That's your freakin' problem. Don't make it other people's.

A good lesson for the future, I must confess. Orleander should always bear in mind that she will never be without a frothing, self-righteous judge of all that is decent just waiting to pounce on her.

An inaccurate statement on two counts. First, she found out before she got married, and that's good enough. It may not be to you, but you seem pretty set on the idea that a woman owes you sex, and quickly, in exchange for your interest. And, secondly, not everyone presumed the worst of Orleander.

And that's hers to deal with. Life goes on. Oh, wait, I forgot to make sure that I'm not infringing on your right to be presumptuous and judgmental.

And once again, invoking Shorty as your justification just doesn't work on this occasion.

Go get your own green hat, and then you can tell people to not post. In the meantime, that ain't your call to make.
____________________

Notes:

° but it really does seem out of line — In fact, it's also off-topic, so I don't have to give a damn about Jaguar culture. Let's see ... green hat? ... okay, there we go. Taken care of.

 

(Insert title here)

Mod Note — Portions of this post have been removed to relevant splinter topics.

A note for Tresbien:

Good luck on that one. I haven't done anything about that for a couple reasons. In the first place, it's pretty much impossible to stop people from digressing if they are so inclined, and we're not going to start banning people over that general tendency. This is because of the second reason: the discussions tend to go wherever they go. Some of the best discussions in the history of this site ended up miles from where they started. It's just the way things go. If this was a biology or physics discussion, it would be easier to constrain. In the meantime, I can only encourage you to assert the issue by elaborating on it slightly. Perhaps it is a cultural barrier, and I doubt you've failed to notice, but people seem to have a hard time understanding either the question or the reasons for it. On that note, I would go so far as to say the phrase "illicit sex" would work better than "illegal sex", but even then, well, many will still find the idea of pre- or extra-marital sex being illicit rather strange.

 

Maybe she had no idea that people would consider she meant a limp dick or premature ejaculation rather than something like scatophilia or golden showers.

Which says more about the people making those assumptions. Perhaps some of them sleep through it.

 

Of course she can ask, the question is: should she?

 

I would assume if she is inexperienced, she won't notice his lack of experience much. If she is experienced, I would think they would have sex before marriage (its usually the girls who want to wait, not the guys).
And if a guy has a small private part, I would hope he would get good at performing oral sex.

Sex is important in a relationship. If its a problem for one of them, it quickly becomes a problem for both of them.