davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (07/08/86)
In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes: >In article <5950@sri-spam.ARPA>, gds@sri-spam.UUCP writes: >> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy? >> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now? >> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same >> person)? I was going to write a flame to the person who replied to this, but I'll pass, let him be happy. Why is it that marriage is one topic on which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as gospel? Let me pass on a few tips on what's NOT important. Physical attraction: after the first 20 years neither of you is going to be a sex symbol, and unless your drives strip a gear, some of the younger members of the opposite sex are going to look a LOT better. People who think this is important get young lovers about 40. Agreement about (pick a topic): looking at my friends who've been married for 20 or more years, roughly half of them fight and the other half agree on most things. None of them have a relation based on one of them being the dominant partner (although a few are based on both thinking they are). Money: being rich and poor is easy. Being middle class you will disagree about allocation of funds. It shouldn't be a big problem, although it is used as an excuse when other things aren't working. ---------------- Notice that I haven't given the secret of HAVING a good marriage, just mentioned things which don't prevent it. The only thing I can state that will almost always wreck a marriage is one person (or both) thinking "s/he'll change that when we get married". People don't mention the little things that bug them, because they don't trust the relationship, and all too often their right! If you want to change someone, either do it before you get married, or forget it! "Still in love, 23 years next week" -- -bill davidsen ihnp4!seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\ \ unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen chinet ------/ sixhub ---------------------/ (davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward"
bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) (07/13/86)
I'd like to say at the start that I'm glad Bill Davidsen shared his opinions to the net about what he has observed in marriage. It's good to hear from someone who has been married for 23 years... Now let me rip into him! In article <826@steinmetz.UUCP>, davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP writes: > In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes: > >In article <5950@sri-spam.ARPA>, gds@sri-spam.UUCP writes: > >> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy? > >> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now? > >> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same > >> person)? > > I was going to write a flame to the person who replied to this That's me > I'll pass, let him be happy. Why is it that marriage is one topic on > which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as > gospel? Wait! Hold on! I have accouple of things to say: Firstly, isn't it alittle bit strong to call people 'losers' in marriage. Why? Just becasue they haven't reached the 'high-level' or marriage that you have? Do you think you're better than them? Secondly, just because I'm not married yet doesn't mean I don't have valid points or opinions. In fact, I didn't see anything in your article that disputed any of my points (since I have 10 of them you'd think you'd at least hit one :-)) Quite the contrary, you agree that physical attraction is not the major point of importance and seem to agree with me that no one side is dominant - that both sides give in alittle. So what's the problem? Please, don't set yourself up as being virtuous because you resisted the temptation to respond. If you have something to say to me then fire away, I'm ready. Still happily awaiting marriage, Bill Bagot
booter@lll-crg.ARpA (Elaine Richards) (07/13/86)
In article <826@steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes: >In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes: >>In article <5950@sri-spam.ARPA>, gds@sri-spam.UUCP writes: >>> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy? >>> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now? >>> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same >>> person)? > >I was going to write a flame to the person who replied to this, but >I'll pass, let him be happy. Why is it that marriage is one topic on >which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as ^^^^^^ >gospel? Let me pass on a few tips on what's NOT important. > That is NOT nice!!! Someone who is not married is that way because either they (somewhere deep in there) don't want to be, are not ready (know how many really YOUNG people read net.news?), or they haven't figured out how to "go about it". Saying they are "losers" is really unfair! Unmarried people are entitled to discuss marriage and divorce just as married people are entitled to discuss singleness. All of us may discuss going to the Moon, but not too many of us will get there. Lighten up. E *****
licsak@hsi.UUCP (Don Licsak) (07/14/86)
> In article <826@steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes: > >In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes: > >>In article <5950@sri-spam.ARPA>, gds@sri-spam.UUCP writes: > >>> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy? > >>> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now? > >>> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same > >>> person)? > > > >I was going to write a flame to the person who replied to this, but > >I'll pass, let him be happy. Why is it that marriage is one topic on > >which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as > ^^^^^^ > >gospel? Let me pass on a few tips on what's NOT important. > > > > That is NOT nice!!! Someone who is not married is that way because either > they (somewhere deep in there) don't want to be, are not ready (know how > many really YOUNG people read net.news?), or they haven't figured out how > to "go about it". Saying they are "losers" is really unfair! > Good point, Elaine. I have a lot of respect for those who choose single life because they know they don't want marriage or aren't ready for it, and freely admit it. > Unmarried people are entitled to discuss marriage and divorce just as > married people are entitled to discuss singleness. All of us may discuss > going to the Moon, but not too many of us will get there. > Another good point. I may rattle some readers with my "blunt" postings, however, I'm a staunch defender of the open forum concept. To the one who referred to "losers", I say "if people aren't measuring up, you'd better check your own yardstick!" > Lighten up. > > E > ***** -- Don Licsak ihnp4!hsi!licsak Health Systems International New Haven, CT 06511 "I'm the person your mother warned you about"
kca@iwsam.UUCP (archie) (07/16/86)
In article <192@wheaton>, bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes: > > I'd like to say at the start that I'm glad Bill Davidsen > shared his opinions to the net about what he has > observed in marriage. It's good to hear from someone > who has been married for 23 years... > > Now let me rip into him! > > In article <826@steinmetz.UUCP>, davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP writes: > > In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes: > > >In article <5950@sri-spam.ARPA>, gds@sri-spam.UUCP writes: > > >> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy? > > >> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now? > > >> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same > > >> person)? > > > > Why is it that marriage is one topic on > > which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as > > gospel? > > Wait! Hold on! I have accouple of things to say: > > Firstly, isn't it alittle bit strong to call people 'losers' > in marriage. Why? Just becasue they haven't reached the 'high-level' > or marriage that you have? Do you think you're better than them? > > People can probably be called 'losers' if their marriages failed > > i.e. ended in divorce. Some people are sensitive to calling their > > marriages failures or saying that they personally failed because > > they got divorced. I think it's like getting fired from a job: > > it may not be all your fault, there may be extenuating circumstances, > > but it's not what you would call a success. > > I don't think that I am better than anyone else because I have > > a happy marriage and he/she doesn't. Although I have a happy > > marriage, I don't think everyone should be married, I don't make > > speeches about what an oppressive and demeaning state being single > > is, and I am reasonably sick of single people making similar > > speeches about marriage. I think relationships/marriages should be > > evaluated (if you need to do that) in the instant cases, not in the > > general case. > > Secondly, just because I'm not married yet doesn't mean I don't > have valid points or opinions. In fact, I didn't see anything in > your article that disputed any of my points (since I have 10 > of them you'd think you'd at least hit one :-)) > > I agree, since most people have some basis for comparison in the > > marriages of the people around them. However, I know a lot more > > about marriage now that I have been married for a few years, a > > point that seems to be lost on people that have never been married. > > > > I missed your original article so don't know what the 10 points were. > > Quite the contrary, you agree that physical attraction is not > the major point of importance and seem to agree with me that > no one side is dominant - that both sides give in alittle. > > So what's the problem? > > Please, don't set yourself up as being virtuous because you > resisted the temptation to respond. > > Why not? > If you have something to say to me then fire away, I'm ready. > > Still happily awaiting marriage, > Bill Bagot
kca@iwsam.UUCP (archie) (07/16/86)
In article <3526@lll-crg.ARpA>, booter@lll-crg.ARpA (Elaine Richards) writes: > In article <826@steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes: > >In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes: > >>In article <5950@sri-spam.ARPA>, gds@sri-spam.UUCP writes: > >>> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy? > >>> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now? > >>> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same > >>> person)? > > > >I was going to write a flame to the person who replied to this, but > >I'll pass, let him be happy. Why is it that marriage is one topic on > >which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as > ^^^^^^ > >gospel? Let me pass on a few tips on what's NOT important. > > > > That is NOT nice!!! Someone who is not married is that way because either > they (somewhere deep in there) don't want to be, are not ready (know how > many really YOUNG people read net.news?), or they haven't figured out how > to "go about it". Saying they are "losers" is really unfair! > > Not nice? get serious. I assume that people who didn't get married > > didn't want to get married (this may be wrong in some cases, but it > > seems a more respectful point of view). Why should it have to be "deep > > in there"? There are many people with many reasons for not wanting > > to be married. I've read some of them on the net. What I resent a lot > > is that if I say I have a happy marriage and that since I have a counter > > example to the theory that MARRIAGE is always an oppressive, rotten > > relationship that always deprives women of their freedom and individuality, > > the theory isn't > > correct, I am told ( by unmarried people, whatever their reasons or > > circumstance) that I am just one case and not the norm, and that I have no > > right to use my experience to attack their theory. In fact, all they have > > to justify their theory is their (selectivly viewed) experience. > > Just because I preferred being married to being single doesn't give > > me the right to assume there is something inherently wrong or inferior > > about the state of singlehood except for a few isolated cases, which > > is what a lot of single people say about marriage. > > I don't think people whose marriages or relationships ended are 'losers' > > but they did fail at those relationships. I don't think it's fair to > > say something is bad because I personally made some mistakes at it. > > Unmarried people are entitled to discuss marriage and divorce just as > married people are entitled to discuss singleness. All of us may discuss > going to the Moon, but not too many of us will get there. > > But people who have been there know a lot more about walking on the > > moon than you or I do from reading about it and watching it on TV. > > Lighten up. > > E > ***** > > All married people were once single people, but not all single > > people have been married. Granted, they have probably observed > > other people's marriages, but there's a difference between observing > > something (watching somebody drive a car, hearing about somebody's > > college experiences but not going to college yourself) and doing it > > yourself. > > ihlpn!ihlpg!kapa
kca@iwsam.UUCP (archie) (07/18/86)
In article <24@iwsam.UUCP>, kca@iwsam.UUCP (archie) writes: > In article <192@wheaton>, bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes: > > > > I'd like to say at the start that I'm glad Bill Davidsen > > shared his opinions to the net about what he has > > observed in marriage. It's good to hear from someone > > who has been married for 23 years... > > > > Now let me rip into him! > > > > In article <826@steinmetz.UUCP>, davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP writes: > > > In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes: > > > >In article <5950@sri-spam.ARPA>, gds@sri-spam.UUCP writes: > > > >> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy? > > > >> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now? > > > >> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same > > > >> person)? > > > > > > Why is it that marriage is one topic on > > > which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as > > > gospel? > > > > Wait! Hold on! I have accouple of things to say: > > > > Firstly, isn't it alittle bit strong to call people 'losers' > > in marriage. Why? Just becasue they haven't reached the 'high-level' > > or marriage that you have? Do you think you're better than them? > People can probably be called 'losers' if their marriages failed i.e. ended in divorce. Some people are sensitive to calling their marriages failures or saying that they personally failed because they got divorced. I think it's like getting fired from a job: it may not be all your fault, there may be extenuating circumstances, but it's not what you would call a success. I don't think that I am better than anyone else because I have a happy marriage and he/she doesn't. Although I am happy being married, I don't think everyone should be married, I don't make speeches about what an oppressive and demeaning state being single is, and I am reasonably sick of single people making similar speeches about marriage. I think relationships/marriages should be evaluated (if you need to do that) in the instant cases, not in the general case. > > > > Secondly, just because I'm not married yet doesn't mean I don't > > have valid points or opinions. In fact, I didn't see anything in > > your article that disputed any of my points (since I have 10 > > of them you'd think you'd at least hit one :-)) > I agree, since most people have some basis for comparison in the marriages of the people around them. However, I know a lot more about marriage now that I have been married for a few years, a point that seems to be lost on people that have never been married. I missed your original article so don't know what the 10 points were. > > > > Quite the contrary, you agree that physical attraction is not > > the major point of importance and seem to agree with me that > > no one side is dominant - that both sides give in alittle. > > > > So what's the problem? > > > > Please, don't set yourself up as being virtuous because you > > resisted the temptation to respond. > Why not? > > > If you have something to say to me then fire away, I'm ready. > > > > Still happily awaiting marriage, > > Bill Bagot >
kca@iwsam.UUCP (archie) (07/18/86)
In article <25@iwsam.UUCP>, kca@iwsam.UUCP (archie) writes: > In article <3526@lll-crg.ARpA>, booter@lll-crg.ARpA (Elaine Richards) writes: > > In article <826@steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes: > > >In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes: > > >>In article <5950@sri-spam.ARPA>, gds@sri-spam.UUCP writes: > > >>> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy? > > >>> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now? > > >>> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same > > >>> person)? > > > > > >I was going to write a flame to the person who replied to this, but > > >I'll pass, let him be happy. Why is it that marriage is one topic on > > >which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as > > ^^^^^^ > > >gospel? Let me pass on a few tips on what's NOT important. > > > > > > > That is NOT nice!!! Someone who is not married is that way because either > > they (somewhere deep in there) don't want to be, are not ready (know how > > many really YOUNG people read net.news?), or they haven't figured out how > > to "go about it". Saying they are "losers" is really unfair! Not nice? get serious. I assume that people who didn't get married didn't want to get married (this may be wrong in some cases, but it seems a more respectful point of view). Why should it have to be "deep in there"? There are many people with many reasons for not wanting to be married. I've read some of them on the net. What I resent a lot is that if I say I have a happy marriage and thus have a counter example to the theory that MARRIAGE is always an oppressive, rotten relationship that always deprives women of their freedom and individuality, the theory isn't correct, I am told ( by unmarried people, whatever their reasons or circumstance) that I am just one case and not the norm, and that I have no right to use my experience to attack their theory. In fact, all they have to justify their theory is their (selectivly viewed) experience. Just because I preferred being married to being single doesn't give me the right to assume there is something inherently wrong or inferior about the state of singlehood except for a few isolated cases, which is what a lot of single people say about marriage. I don't think people whose marriages or relationships ended are 'losers' but they did fail at those relationships. I don't think it's fair to say something is bad because I personally made some mistakes at it. > > > > Unmarried people are entitled to discuss marriage and divorce just as > > married people are entitled to discuss singleness. All of us may discuss > > going to the Moon, but not too many of us will get there. But people who have been there know a lot more about walking on the moon than you or I do from reading about it and watching it on TV. > > > > Lighten up. > > > > E > > ***** > All married people were once single people, but not all single people have been married. Granted, they have probably observed other people's marriages, but there's a difference between observing something (watching somebody drive a car, hearing about somebody's college experiences but not going to college yourself) and doing it yourself. > ihlpn!ihlpg!kapa
cheryl@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (07/18/86)
In article <3526@lll-crg.ARpA> booter@lll-crg.UUCP (Elaine Richards) writes: >In article <826@steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes: >>In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes: >>>In article <5950@sri-spam.ARPA>, gds@sri-spam.UUCP writes: >>>> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy? >>>> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now? >>>> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same >>>> person)? >> >>I'll pass, let him be happy. Why is it that marriage is one topic on >>which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as > ^^^^^^ >>gospel? Let me pass on a few tips on what's NOT important. > >That is NOT nice!!! Someone who is not married is that way because either >they (somewhere deep in there) don't want to be... Correct. Why is it a loss to not want to be married? Is it also a loss to not want to be a plumber? If everyone else wants to do their own plumbing, and I happen to already have perfectly good plumbing, and have no desire to ever do any plumbing, does that make me a loser? I consider married life just another choice in life, just like carrer-choice or what make, model and year car to drive, and what part of the country to live in. I can criticize 1970 VW bugs, 1978 Plymouth Furies, 1968 Chevy Novas and 1982 Mazda RX7's. I can also criticize the marriage laws of New York and Illinois, and the societal attitudes regarding marriage that I, as a married person, was exposed to. Cheryl
cheryl@oddjob.UUCP (07/18/86)
In article <24@iwsam.UUCP> kca@iwsam.UUCP (archie) writes: >> > In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes: >> > >In article <5950@sri-spam.ARPA>, gds@sri-spam.UUCP writes: >> > >> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy? >> > >> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now? >> > >> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same >> > >> person)? >> > >> > Why is it that marriage is one topic on >> > which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as >> > gospel? >> >> Wait! Hold on! I have accouple of things to say: >> >> Firstly, isn't it alittle bit strong to call people 'losers' >> in marriage. Why? Just becasue they haven't reached the 'high-level' >> or marriage that you have? Do you think you're better than them? > >> > People can probably be called 'losers' if their marriages failed >> > i.e. ended in divorce. Some people are sensitive to calling their >> > marriages failures or saying that they personally failed because >> > they got divorced. I think it's like getting fired from a job: >> > it may not be all your fault, there may be extenuating circumstances, >> > but it's not what you would call a success. What about quitting a lousy job and going on to a better one, i.e. one that pays better and that you like more? This is what MY divorce was like, and I call it a great success. Within a year of my divorce, I also changed jobs to a much, much better one--I was free to do so! Now, less than a year after that, my former office mate has ALSO opted for the get-divorced, get-a-better-job option. I consider hers a great success, and I suspect that my getting fed up with allowing myself to be shit on in my ex-job and ex-marriage had something to do with her getting fed up with it too. >> > I don't think that I am better than anyone else because I have >> > a happy marriage and he/she doesn't. Although I have a happy >> > marriage, I don't think everyone should be married, I don't make >> > speeches about what an oppressive and demeaning state being single is, You most certainly do. You call all divorced people failures. That is demeaning and oppressive. You fail to see the negative effects of marriage on women. >> > and I am reasonably sick of single people making similar >> > speeches about marriage. I think relationships/marriages should be >> > evaluated (if you need to do that) in the instant cases, not in the >> > general case. So why is it that married women are more likely to commit suicide than unmarried women, and married men are less likely to commit suicide than unmarried men? Statistically, marriage has more negative effects on women than men? It is then vailid to conclude that women are more oppressed in marriage than men. Therefore, divorce can be considered a success for women who find themselves oppressed in marriage. Cheryl
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (07/24/86)
There were so many >s in this posting I couldn't figure out who said what. But somebody typed in some real bullshit, so here goes - >> > Firstly, isn't it alittle bit strong to call people 'losers' >> > in marriage. Why? Just becasue they haven't reached the 'high-level' >> > or marriage that you have? Do you think you're better than them? >> >People can probably be called 'losers' if their marriages failed >i.e. ended in divorce. >... I think it's like getting fired from a job: >it may not be all your fault, there may be extenuating circumstances, >but it's not what you would call a success. The world is black and white, the world is black and white, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Get the point? I can only hope that whenever something you do doesn't work for the best someone reminds you you're a failure. Or maybe you'll change your viewpoint. Care, Peter B
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (07/25/86)
In article <1547@vax1.fluke.UUCP> tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) writes: >>> > Firstly, isn't it alittle bit strong to call people 'losers' >>> > in marriage. Why? Just becasue they haven't reached the 'high-level' >>> > or marriage that you have? Do you think you're better than them? >>> >>People can probably be called 'losers' if their marriages failed >>i.e. ended in divorce. >>... I think it's like getting fired from a job: >>it may not be all your fault, there may be extenuating circumstances, >>but it's not what you would call a success. > >I can only hope that whenever something you do doesn't work for the best >someone reminds you you're a failure. Or maybe you'll change your viewpoint. Hey, my ex MISREPRESENTED HIMSELF AS A FEMINIST before we got married. He said "Of course you'll finish your SB at Cornell and go on to grad school" before the wedding. Then, afterwards, he did everything in his power to make it impossible--"I'm sorry, but we just can't afford Cornell, why don't you transfer to a state school? U of I Urbana is just as good as U of Chicago [sic] -- why don't you stay here with me?" I defied him on both counts (figured out a way to graduate from Cornell anyway, without having to give them any more money, went to the U of C) and then he had the nerve to blame *me* for making it difficult for *him* to produce his papers for his precious tenure. Yeah, it was a bad decision, but it was a bad decision based on disinformation provied by the enemy. And it was *no* failure to recognize the swindle. Many women give in to this kind of bullshit-- how many times have you heard "well I would have gone to grad school but..." and "well I would have had a career but..." and "well I would have finished college but..." where the stuff following the "but" is a bad circumstance carefully provided by their husbands. They never recognized how they've been cheated out of what they openly admit that they *would* *have* *done* -- and yet they are considered successes in their marriage. They'd rather settle for less than admit that they've been swindled. It's not *nice* to call your husband a liar and a cheat. I'd rather be NOT-NICE than be cheated. Cheryl > >Care, >Peter B